Creation VS Evolution
David Jensen
On Fri, 02 Aug 1996 12:01:43 -0700, Jerry Hoffman <cros...@pennet.net>
wrote:
>The Other Way
[A fraudulent, intentional mistatement of science spammed to all the
world. I have trimmed many headers, but not enough. Follow-ups trimmed
further]
What lies. Bad poetry lying for g-d.
===========================================================================
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt (Earl of Chatham), speech in the House of Lords, Nov. 18, 1783
Sean Webb
someone spammed :
> The Other Way
>
> One day some men of science
> Who thought that they were bright
> Set out to prove the Bible wrong
> And their ideas right
>
> They started with creation
> And said, "This just can't be
> Why the man who wrote this theory
> Didn't have a P.H.D.
>
> So they put their heads together
> As we humans sometimes do
> And thought up this amazing tale
> Which I'll relate to you
>
> It seems a tiny speck of dust
> Was floating out in space
> When ZAP a bolt of lightning struck
> Hitting it in the face
>
>
{MAJOR BIG SNIP]
Let me start by apologising to those alt.sci. groups that have this post , but if the
lion fodder wants to SPAM then we have at least the right to reply.
It friday evening , i've had a glass of wine and NOW i'm in the mood.
some body certainly has a lot of free time on their hands !!
BTW who invented GOD.
If you accept ' God always was and always will be'
i see no fundamental difference between this statement and
'the universe always was and always will be'.
(i) They both start with an act of faith.
(ii) They both proclaim that there was nothing before
(iii) Both claims cannot be disproved. see (i) above (a bit like QM no ?)
If you accept that the universe always was and always will be , then there is no
need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was there so that
(a) When we die, it is not the end
(b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they have one
ready made.
(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can have a ready
made reason to feel special and loved.
(d) Because of their faith in god some people do a lot of good, but unfortunately
many more have caused others extreme hardship.
BTW as an aside , todate i have met ALOT of deeply religious people but out of all
those that i have sat down and listened to , in the end they have all proved to be
exceedingly biggotted in several areas with only one exception so far.
He was a Harri Harishna. Whether its him or his brand of faith i don't know , but i
admired his openess to criticism , his honestly and general non assuming nature.
He also never poked fun at others beliefs (the christians can learn something here!!)
I don't agree with is philosophy but i can't complain about his attitude.
Its about time that christians got off their high horses (they can't even agree with
each other) and accepted that 'there can be only one' is nothing more than a quote
from highlander.
PS. if GOD does exist , is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty principle ??
'Do you serve anthing other than SPAM ?'
'Yes sir, we have ....'
'SPAM and CHIPS'
'SPAM and SPAM'
.......
'SPAM and christians'
wasn't the life of brian great !!
All religions require an act of faith, as such they cannot be disproved, therefore
they are all valid. Anyone that claims otherwise is blind.
As you sow (SPAM) so shall you reap (get spammed)
'Hello '
'F*ck off'
' Eh ? i've come for a argument'
'Sorry sir , this rooms is for insults, next room down the corridor for arguments'
- Monty Python
Sean Webb
Carmen Toledo
Sean Webb,
That is indeed a long listing of newsgroups. I will respond from
sci.physics.
In <N.080296....@196-7-124-176.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
(Sean Webb) writes:
>
...[snip]
>Let me start by apologising to those alt.sci. groups that have this
>post , but if the lion fodder wants to SPAM then we have at least the
>right to reply.
>It friday evening , i've had a glass of wine and NOW i'm in the mood.
>
>some body certainly has a lot of free time on their hands !!
>
>BTW who invented GOD.
>
>If you accept ' God always was and always will be'
>i see no fundamental difference between this statement and
>'the universe always was and always will be'.
What is the known universe? How do you know it always existed?
>(i) They both start with an act of faith.
How do you know God is an act of faith? If God is eternal, what
does faith got to do with His existence? Faith is a human reaction.
>(ii) They both proclaim that there was nothing before
What is "nothing?" What is "before?" Who proclaims?
>(iii) Both claims cannot be disproved. see (i) above (a bit like QM no
>?)
Is this circular reasoning?
>If you accept that the universe always was and always will be, then
>there is no need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was
>there so that
>(a) When we die, it is not the end.
You mean that there may be an "afterlife?"
>(b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they
>have one ready made.
What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
recipe? :-)
>(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.
You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall
to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very
hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth
more than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-30)
>(d) Because of their faith in god some people do a lot of good, but
>unfortunately many more have caused others extreme hardship.
>
Yes, you are quite right. A lot of conflict has been perpetrate in
the name of a particular religion or in the name of God.
>BTW as an aside, todate i have met ALOT of deeply religious people but
>out of all those that i have sat down and listened to, in the end they
>have all proved to be exceedingly biggotted in several areas with only
>one exception so far. He was a Harri Harishna. Whether its him or his
>brand of faith i don't know, but i admired his openess to criticism,
>his honestly and general non assuming nature.
>He also never poked fun at others beliefs (the christians can learn
something here!!)
Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)
What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?
>I don't agree with is philosophy but i can't complain about his
>attitude. Its about time that christians got off their high horses
Amen! That's good preaching, preacher! Oops. :-)
>(they can't even agree with each other) and accepted that 'there can
>be only one' is nothing more than a quote from highlander.
Like wow! "The Truth is out there!" (X-Files)
[P.S. Note that "Truth" is personified.]
>
>PS. if GOD does exist, is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty
>principle??
If God is the Designer of the universe, if He wrote the physical
laws and if He knew Heisenberg before the foundations of the world were
laid, then what makes you think that God is bounded by anything?
Jesus said, "With God all things are possible."
...[snip]
>
>All religions require an act of faith, as such they cannot be
>disproved, therefore they are all valid. Anyone that claims otherwise
>is blind.
If all religions are valid, then how was it that Jesus of Nazareth
was able to make the blind to see, to heal the cripple, and to raise
the dead?
What do you think about the claims that Jesus made about himself?
Namely, Jesus claimed, "He was the way, the truth and the life."
Now that is a rather exclusive statement. There are no other ways.
>
>As you sow (SPAM) so shall you reap (get spammed)
>
>'Hello '
>'F*ck off'
Why would anyone what to do that? ;-)
>'Eh ? i've come for an argument'
>'Sorry sir, this rooms is for insults, next room down the corridor for
>arguments'
>- Monty Python
>
>Sean Webb
>
Have a nice day!
Sean Webb
Carmen Toledo,
[lots of snips]
>
> Is this circular reasoning?
>
Yup
>
> >If you accept that the universe always was and always will be, then
> >there is no need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was
> >there so that
>
> >(a) When we die, it is not the end.
>
> You mean that there may be an "afterlife?"
yup
>
> >(b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they
> >have one ready made.
>
> What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
> recipe? :-)
>
ready - made ... god exists as per the scriptures , therefore he loves us one and
all, we all all his children hence special. seems a ready made pupose to life.
> >(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
> have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.
>
> You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?
>
the answer depends on whether you are a christian or not , and if you take the
bible literally
>
>
> Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)
>
Its a way of life, just like buddism , christianity etc
> What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?
>
thats the point ...
Every christian (deeply religious ones) i have met is biggoted in a different area.
The ones that take the bible literally (or so they claim) point to those that don't as
being deceived by the devil.
I have yet to meet one person that takes the bible literally , that does so for every
word. There is ALWAYS some area that he will take as being 'a matter for
interpretation'.
Put two christians in a room together and i will guarantee that within half an hour i
could find and area upon which they will both disagree and refuse to budge, each
believing that the other to be misguided.
BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to cover
more times than i care to count.
In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been modified , not by
divine guidance , but by biased translations & chinese whispers. There is some
truth , but what parts i cannot say.
> Have a nice day!
>
same to you
Sean Webb
[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]
Carmen Toledo
In <N.080396....@196-7-171-235.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
(Sean Webb) writes:
...[cut]
>> What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
>> recipe? :-)
>>
>us one and all, we all all his children hence special. seems a ready
>made pupose to life.
Did God exist before the Scriptures were written down by the
several authors? Didn't there exist oral tradition long before Moses?
Now, what is God's purpose to life?
>> >(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
>> have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.
>>
>> You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?
>>
>the answer depends on whether you are a christian or not, and if you
>take the bible literally
>
Does it help if you take a semester of hermeneutics?
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)
>>
>Its a way of life, just like buddism, christianity etc
>
>> What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?
>>
>thats the point ...
>Every christian (deeply religious ones) i have met is biggoted in a
>different area.
Are not atheists also bigoted? Isn't one's beliefs dependents on
one's worldview? Culture is a factor.
>The ones that take the bible literally (or so they claim) point to
>those that don't as being deceived by the devil.
Who is that fellow? Does he exist? Why is there evil in the
world?
>I have yet to meet one person that takes the bible literally , that
>does so for every word. There is ALWAYS some area that he will take as
>being 'a matter for interpretation'.
Again, would a semester of hermeneutics be helpful to the scholar?
>Put two christians in a room together and i will guarantee that within
>half an hour i could find and area upon which they will both disagree
>and refuse to budge, each believing that the other to be misguided.
It may be the reason why there a so many denominations.
>BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to
>cover more times than i care to count.
>In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been
>modified, not by divine guidance, but by biased translations & chinese
>whispers.
Can you also read the original languages? Do Bible publishers not
have interlinears? Why be lazy?
>There is some truth, but what parts i cannot say.
Are you talking about history in the Bible? Are you talking about
moral absolutes?
Edmond Wollmann
Carmen Toledo wrote:
> In <N.080396....@196-7-171-235.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
> (Sean Webb) writes:
> ...[cut]
> >> What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
> >> recipe? :-)
The purpose of living is to discover the purpose of living (Plato). When
you discover that you will discover that to be all that you can be in
this life is the purpose now, because the you you are now will never be
this you again (Spinoza).
> >ready - made ... god exists as per the scriptures, therefore he loves
> >us one and all, we all all his children hence special. seems a ready
> >made pupose to life.
"All That Is" exists everywhere all at once because there is no such
thing as time-well only when you are participating in it, but an illusion
none the less.
> Did God exist before the Scriptures were written down by the
> several authors? Didn't there exist oral tradition long before Moses?
Before and after are illusions of the physical world, see the above.
Existance always is and has been.
> Now, what is God's purpose to life?
Life IS the exploration of "All That Is" of itself of which we are each
all the different ways that it has of co-=creating and dreaming itself
into existance in this exploration.
> >> >(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
> >> have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.
Everyone is significant and loved or they wouldn't exist. There are only
three absolutes in the multiverse (as opposed to universe because of the
existance of other dimensional levels). They are;
1) that you exist
2) the all is one and the one is all (holographics)
3) what you extend into reality is what you extract.
> >> You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?
This is subjective value judging, either you exist or you do not. One
state implies significance the other doesn't exist. "Hows" are created
from judgement (please see your own reference in the garden of eden
theme).
> >the answer depends on whether you are a christian or not, and if you
> >take the bible literally
The answers exist within everyone so willing to seek-period. The christ
consciousness is the combined collective consciousness of this solar
system and is accessable by all beings. "He who drinks from my mouth
shall be as me and I shall be him" The Gospel according to St Thomas.
> Does it help if you take a semester of hermeneutics?
Not really because each individual creates and extracts their own
meanings from the "props" of physical reality to attach their own
meaning.
> >> Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)
> >>
> >Its a way of life, just like buddism, christianity etc
> >
> >> What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?
> >>
> >thats the point ...
> >Every christian (deeply religious ones) i have met is biggoted in a
> >different area.
Judge not lest you be judged means that if you judge others you are
judging portions of yourself, because "All That Is" is quite literally
all that is. So many do exclude many teachings because they don't fit
their perscriptions. In Romans 14:14 we are told that NOTHING is unclean
of itself and yet many place unclean meanings into many inherently
nuetral situations.
> Are not atheists also bigoted? Isn't one's beliefs dependents on
> one's worldview? Culture is a factor.
>
> >The ones that take the bible literally (or so they claim) point to
> >those that don't as being deceived by the devil.
That is because they have mistaken the meaning of satan, which is really
meant as the deception of the material world i.e. Christ to Peter "Get
thee behind me satan for you are thinking with the mind of men not with
the mind of God". The idea was to dissuade persons from giving power to
the material at the expense of spiritual recognitions. Christ's goal was
to self-empower but people gave power to the person instead of following
the teachings. Now religion is the science of following.
> Who is that fellow? Does he exist? Why is there evil in the
> world?
Hell derives from the word helan (Old English) meaning covered over-
hidden. Therefore heaven is acheived through dis-covery and
enlightenment. "The kingdom of heaven does not come through expectation,
the kingdom of heaven is spread upon the land but men do not see it" The
gospel according to st Thomas.
> >I have yet to meet one person that takes the bible literally , that
> >does so for every word. There is ALWAYS some area that he will take as
> >being 'a matter for interpretation'.
It is ALL a matter of interpretation. Because there is no one truth
except that THE truth is the composition of all truths. If there was only
one truth there would only be one person, place, religion or thing.
> Again, would a semester of hermeneutics be helpful to the scholar?
There may be collective agreement on certain parameters, the same way
that science is a study of physicality laws and effects, but it is still
a matter of definitional choice which system one buys into. Anyone who
does not believe in the power of their choice however may then try to
force it upon others in an attempt to convince themselves. Because anyone
who must force the belief obviously does not believe in it themselves.
> >Put two christians in a room together and i will guarantee that within
> >half an hour i could find and area upon which they will both disagree
> >and refuse to budge, each believing that the other to be misguided.
> It may be the reason why there a so many denominations.
There is no one truth. Diversity is the nature of "All That Is" as a
positive expression, exclusivity is a creation of man from limited and
fearful thinking.
> >BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to
> >cover more times than i care to count.
> >In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been
> >modified, not by divine guidance, but by biased translations & chinese
> >whispers.
It like all else is modified to fit the beliefs of the observer. It is
the theory or belief assumption that determines what we are capable of
observing.
> Can you also read the original languages? Do Bible publishers not
> have interlinears? Why be lazy?
Makes no difference on the effect of interpretation, the observer will
still extract meaning relevant to him/herself.
> >There is some truth, but what parts i cannot say.
There are many truths in all subjects.
> Are you talking about history in the Bible? Are you talking about
> moral absolutes?
Moral absolutes do not exist. I have listed the only 3 absolutes that are
capable of being percieved in our current state. The rest is meaning that
is attached to it.
> >> Have a nice day!
> >>
> >same to you
> >
> >Sean Webb
> >[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]
"All I have seen teaches me to trust the creator for all I have not seen"
Emerson
The "day" will perfectly reflect the idea you are being at any given
moment. It depends on what definition of the day you decide is the "real"
one. It is always a matter of choice. "All That Is" gave us co-creating
free will to make it so.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Peter Bray
Sean Webb wrote:
>
> If you accept ' God always was and always will be'
> i see no fundamental difference between this statement and
> 'the universe always was and always will be'.
>
> (i) They both start with an act of faith.
> (ii) They both proclaim that there was nothing before
> (iii) Both claims cannot be disproved. see (i) above (a bit like QM no ?)
The chain of argument here is not.
At least your lower case "i" gives the impression
you are humbled by the awesome magnitude of your contemplation.
Wherever did you get the impression that the Universe always was?
Thirty years ago that was one of two main popular theories.
It is less popular now given a lot of astronomical, astrophysical,
and nuclear physics evidence and theoretical physics work.
> If you accept that the universe always was and always will be , then there is no
> need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was there so that
> (a) When we die, it is not the end
> (b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they have one
> ready made.
> (c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can have a ready
> made reason to feel special and loved.
> (d) Because of their faith in god some people do a lot of good, but unfortunately
> many more have caused others extreme hardship.
Your principal sentence here contradicts itself.
As to your supporting contentions:
(a) Could you please check for me? - I'm busy here.
(b) You imply that those who serve God are incapable of developing goals.
Some of the most competent people in the world manage both.
The not so subtle implication is that they are somehow lost.
Might not that apply to someone else in this dialogue?
(c) Only a fool never feels moments of low self-estime.
(d) That is not God's fault but a flawed humanity.
> He was a Harri Harishna. Whether its him or his brand of faith i don't know , but i
> admired his openess to criticism , his honestly and general non assuming nature.
> He also never poked fun at others beliefs (the christians can learn something here!!)
So might you - the whole tone of your post attempts to denigrate
people who believe in God.
> PS. if GOD does exist , is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty principle ??
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not mean that everything
must be uncertain. It is a measure of the inappropriateness of the
crude concepts and mental symbols we use to think about the universe
at the fundamental physics scale. The error is not in reality itself
but in the usefullness of concepts like position and velocity at the
fundamental particle level.
The envelope around reality as opposed to the supernatural moves as
we learn more. That does not make things once ascribed to the supernatural
any less real, it simply brings them into the gambit of our primitive
science. Whether God, an After-Life, or elements of the so-called
Para-Normal are a part of the Universe or outside it, is simply a matter
of definition (and how advanced Science is in a given era).
Have you ever been looking at someone who could not possibly see you
and have them suddenly turn and look straight at you? Have you ever
suddenly felt complelled to turn and see someone looking at you?
Can you explain it? - Does that mean it must be pure chance? It may be
but of course it might not be. Nor can you assume that it might not be
an accepted scientific phenomenon of a future day.
> All religions require an act of faith, as such they cannot be disproved, therefore
> they are all valid. Anyone that claims otherwise is blind.
Sometimes there is a response that you can feel as keenly as you know
your own name. That is more than just faith. I would not be surprised
to find that all the great prophets of God had more in common than
otherwise. Tune in.
--
Cheers
Peter Bray
'An Australian in Dallas'
mailto:pab...@airmail.net No Junk E-Mail Please!
Paul Haydock
On Sat, 03 Aug 96 10:26:38 GMT, spw...@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
:>BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to cover
:>divine guidance , but by biased translations & chinese whispers. There is some
:>truth , but what parts i cannot say.
:>
:>> Have a nice day!
:>>
:>same to you
:>
:>Sean Webb
:>[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]
Hi Sean,
Now I would be interested if you would look at the Bible Numerics
section in www.http://trf.org.au
It claims proof of inspiration of the scriptures.
Go,
Paul
Sean Webb
'Claims' being the operative word.
Sean Webb
FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
Frank J. Warner
In article <320a7546....@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
k...@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
[Newsgroups trimmed]
> On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 20:59:21 GMT, wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
> >the barna research group, in oxnard,
> >CA, making a presentation before the republican national committee
> >meeting, quoted in the 8.8.96 allentown, pa "morning call" says that
> >87% of americans consider themselves xtians.
>
> Hmmm. A research group, hired to speak to the Christian-Right dominated
> Republican party make claims for the % of people who claim to be Christian.
> Couldn't possibly be biased. I'm sure their research methods were flawless
> and unbiased. Hershey's had a study done that proved that chocolate doesn't
> cause pimples. I believe that one, too.
Not to mention Bob Dole's uncertainty over (*hack* *hack* *cough* --'scuse
me while I reach for another Marlboro) tobacco's addictiveness.
Or the recently signed Welfare Reform bill, which has as its premise the
logic invented by the military during the Vietnam war: "We had to burn the
village to save it."
--
wild(at our first)beasts uttered human words
--our second coming made stones sing like birds--
but o the starhushed silence which our thirds
--e. e. cummings
'73 poems' (1963)
Jerry Teach
christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you don't agree with
the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,
therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
in a BIG way...
Jerry Teach
Charles W. Johnson
'lo everyone
I'd like to take the time to point out that, in a recent post, I
accidentally confused Mr. Quitt with Mr. Holden due to a misreading of the
annotations of who wrote what. I apologize sincerely to the Venerated Mr.
Holden, with his Mighty Store of Knowledge, that I might confuse him with
Mr. Quitt, who is so limited by that inconvienent faculty of common sense.
Jerry Teach (jte...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Sean Webb wrote:
[deletia]
: > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
Welllll, not really. Just "creationist scientist." Before I get the
Christers on my tail asking why I said this, I will lay out rather simply
why Creationism does not qualify as science. Creationism has
predefined results: that the Bible must be the literal inerrant truth.
Around this, in lieu of any real evidence and without any support backing
their basic premise, they make wild hypotheses that are generally based on
fundamental misunderstanding of scientific principles. Just as theology
cannot truly qualify as philosophy, so creationism cannot truly qualify as
science; heresy is disallowed. The charges may change, but never the
verdict.
: Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout
: history have been christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian
Yes, and a heretic, too. Mr. Newton was, in fact, an Arian, a precursor of
the modern sect of Unitarianism. The Arians, among their other heretical
beliefs, rejected the concept of the Trinity, and held that Jesus, while
divine, was the lesser rather than the equal of Yahweh the Father. Mr.
Newton was very interested in Biblical prophecies, especially those of
David and Revelations. His conclusions on many issues were similar to
those of the Seventh Day Adventists. There is a rather interesting article
about this and other aspects of Newton's personality in the most recent
Skeptical Enquirer. Interesting stuff.
Oh, boy! A Pascal's Wager!
: God has never been proven nor disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50
: chance on being correct about his exsistense.
Non sequitor. Just because something has been not yet been proven or
disproven does not delegate the possibilities to 50/50.
: The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie,
: I turn to dust at death and didn't count for anything.
: On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
: in a BIG way...
I'll leave the handling of the "didn't count for anything" to the
ethicists. Now then, for the "right = heaven/wrong = nothing" fluff.
The fallacy in this is bifurcation, or incorrectly stating only two
possibilities when there are many more. For instance, what if Yahweh does
exist, but he does like the ancient Hebrews thought he did, and just send
everyone to the shadowy land of Sheol? Or what if, in fact, a god exists,
but he doesn't care about we pathetic little humans? Or how about if
Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu are supreme? Get ready to spend yet another
lifetime on the wheel of karma...
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
---
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator
---
Thought for the day:
"We sit outside and argue all night long
About a God we've never seen,
But never fails to side with me."
-- Primitive Radio Gods
Jim Holmstrom
Jerry Teach wrote:
> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>
> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout
> history have been christians... ...God has never been proven nor
> disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct
> about his exsistense.
Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has
to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.
> The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
> dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
>your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...
This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
John Holmstrom
B
Well Pascals Wager or paradox. As has been pointed out before the whole
thing is contingent on a good God like you imagine. I may imagine
another God, who hasn't revealed himself yet, who sends all christians
to Hell and all other religious believers and atheists he lets into
Heaven. In which case you have a lot to lose by believing. As there is
no proof for either your God or my proposed God then Pascal's wager is a
poor argument for belief. Its better to believe on some other basis.
Bernhard Schopper
Jim Holmstrom <ji...@zzz.com> wrote:
>what do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to >lose by not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
Substitute MIND for IMORTAL SOUL (sic), and you're dead on.
Bernie
Carmen Toledo
In <N.080996....@196-7-124-165.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
(Sean Webb) writes:
>
>
...[snip]
>Sean Webb
>
>FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>
entitled "Kingdom of the Cults." It is neither Christian nor science.
Chris A Reiser
Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<320DA3...@ix.netcom.com>...
[SNIP (with a big pair of scissors)]
>
> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history
have been
> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you
don't agree with
> the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by
claiming that
> only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor
disproven,
> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his
exsistense. The
> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust
at death and
> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in
alot of trouble
> in a BIG way...
>
> Jerry Teach
>
So, is your view totally on what happens after we die. What about the here
and now.
The arguments surrounding "Creation VS Evolution" and "Christian VS
Atheist"
have very much to do with our daily lives. How we live, what we strive
for, how we treat
other people, -- our philosophy of life. I have found that engineers,
scientists, and
other professions which strive to seek the truth, generally result in
kinder, gentler
people than the Christian Right or any church has ever produced.
I prefer atheists to Christians. They are more open minded, honest,
relaxed, etc. Anyway,
for me to become a Christian would be to deny many of the truths that I
have discovered
about life, friendship, science, the wonder of evolution, the amazing
beauty of nature, etc.
I feel that becoming a Christian would be a big step backwards morally,
intellectually, and
ethically for me. So, I think that by looking at today and tomorrow rather
than viewing
death as the ultimate goal, that I am better off.
__ Chris __
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has
>to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
>Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.
if you're talking about schrodingers cat, you've assumed the
conclusion. if there is a box, the cat itself is the only thing which
knows whether it exists or not. it doesn't imply anything else at all.
Frank J. Warner
> Jerry Teach wrote:
[snip]
> > The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
> > dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
> >your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...
>
> This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
> the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
> do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
> not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
Pascal's Paradox is an interesting experiment in logic, but it ignores the
larger point:
Q: What do you have to lose by believing in something that is patently
ridiculous?
A: The ability to look at oneself in the mirror each morning.
Brian Davison
> >
> > Sean Webb
> >
> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>
> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you don't agree with
> the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
> only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,
> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> in a BIG way...
>
Just having two different opinions does not mean that both have a
fifty/fifty chance of being true! If for example my opinion is that the
fastest land animal is a Roadrunner, and you say a Rhino, if we are
both wrong then neither answer is right!
Therefore your suggestion is absurd... in all of the infinite
possibilities anybodie's opinions on creation has a less than minute
chance of being correct!
David Hultgren
Jim Holmstrom wrote:
>
> Jerry Teach wrote:
>
> > > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout
> > disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct
> > about his exsistense.
>
> to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
> Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.
>
> > dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
> >your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...
>
> the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
> do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
> not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
>
Its "Pascala wager", Its not valid since You can get into even bigger
dodo if You worship the wrong god.
Pascal just ignored all other alternatives besides the christian god vs
atheism.
--
David Hultgren
har...@plea.se
david.h...@ffvaerotech.ffv.se
http://www.plea.se/~hard.to
Jerry Teach
Brian Davison wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Sean Webb
> > >
> > > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
> > the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
> > difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> > didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> > in a BIG way...
> >
>
> Just having two different opinions does not mean that both have a
> fifty/fifty chance of being true! If for example my opinion is that the
> fastest land animal is a Roadrunner, and you say a Rhino, if we are
> both wrong then neither answer is right!
>
> Therefore your suggestion is absurd... in all of the infinite
> possibilities anybodie's opinions on creation has a less than minute
> chance of being correct!
Okay, I stand corrected :] I was trying to make a point but used the wrong language to
get it across (actually faulty logic and bad mathmatics) as you and the others have been
telling me. I still believe that of all the beliefs the athiest gets the short end of
the stick if he's wrong, but like someone said in an earlier reply to my message, that
certainly would be the wrong reason to believe in God.
Tom Spain
daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:
> No. "Christian Scientist" is a cult. See Dr. Walter Martin's book
>entitled "Kingdom of the Cults." It is neither Christian nor science.
Which is also an apt description for your own nonsensical rantings.
BYTE-TECH
technical services for business
Modesto, CA 209 531-1144
'first hour free' consulting services
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>> This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
>> the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
>> do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
>> not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
the fact that you have to have access to such knowledge means in
itself risking something. Ie, one can get depressed by being told
violent things or that things they do are wrong. pascal falls apart
there. Also, which zeus do you want to believe in odin, god, yahweh,
satan, ect ect.?and then when they ask for money or tax exemption
you've lost ALOT MORE THAN NOTHING.
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
>> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian.
newton would have been stoned had he stated his actual opinions.
dco...@cpursuit.com
Very true, Bernie.
---
Christian Pursuit -- Connecting you to Christ! ** New Users Welcome **
Telnet://CPursuit.Com Dial: 414.896.2660 http://www.cpursuit.com
Put Jesus Christ in His place .. YOUR life!
Charles W. Johnson
Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:
: >> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history
: >> have been christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian.
: newton would have been stoned had he stated his actual opinions.
Indeed. As I stated in an earlier response to this post, Newton was a
verifiable heretic. Sir Isaac was a member of a denomination known as the
Arians, a precursor of the Unitarians, who denied the trinity. Newton's
interpretations of Biblical prophecies (esp. those of Daniel and
Revelations) were close to the modern day Seventh Day Adventists. And
although he probably would not be stoned, he would have certainly lost his
job as mathematics professor at Cambridge, in (ironically) Trinity
College.
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
--
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator
--
These opinions are mine. They may not be those of my employer. They are almost
certainly not those of the Christian Coalition.
--
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list.
Violators will have complaints sent to their postmasters. Die, you spamming
SCUM!
--
"A lot of Christians wears crosses around their necks. Do you think that when
Christ returns, the first thing he's going to want to see is another fucking
cross?!?" - Bill Hicks
Aaron Bergman
:Jerry Teach wrote:
:
:> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
:>
:> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout
:> history have been christians... ...God has never been proven nor
:> disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct
:> about his exsistense.
:
:Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has
:to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
:Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.
Oh please do.
Aaron
:
:> The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
:> dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
:>your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...
:
:This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
:the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
:do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
:not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
Pascal's wager, actually. There are numerous flaws in it. I'll point out
one. Which religion should I believe in?
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The quote left intentionally blank.
Scott Thomson
<I cut the rest>
> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his
> > exsistense. The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no
> > biggie, I turn to dust at death and didn't count for anything. On the
> > other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble > > in a BIG way...
> >
> > Jerry Teach
Although I would argue with the 50/50 chance I won't here, as it would
seem rather pointless, but don't you think that fear of post-mortem
persecution by your god is a rather pathetic and spineless reason to
demonstrate to the world your "faith" in your belief. I don't care what
you believe but people should at least have the guts to stand up for
there convictions without fear,--- or is that what your little book tells
you to do??
Scott
=========================================================================
Scott Thomson | Tel : (06)201 2937 Fax: (06)201 5030
Applied Ecology Research Group | Mail: P.O. Box 1
University of Canberra | BELCONNEN ACT 2616 AUSTRALIA
=========================================================================
Dr Andrew J. Doherty
Jerry Teach wrote:
>
> Sean Webb wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 03 Aug 96 10:26:38 GMT, spw...@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
> > > :>BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to cover
> > > :>more times than i care to count.
> > > :>In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been modified , not
> > > by
> > > :>divine guidance , but by biased translations & chinese whispers. There is
> > > some
> > > :>truth , but what parts i cannot say.
> > > :>
> > > :>> Have a nice day!
> > > :>>
> > > :>same to you
> > > :>
> > > :>Sean Webb
> > > :>[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]
> > > :>
> > >
> > > Hi Sean,
> > > Now I would be interested if you would look at the Bible Numerics
> > > section in www.http://trf.org.au
> > > It claims proof of inspiration of the scriptures.
> > >
> > > Go,
> > > Paul
> >
> > 'Claims' being the operative word.
> >
> > Sean Webb
> >
>
> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
> the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> in a BIG way...
>
> Jerry Teach
one. Religion and science are simply two ways of looking at and
interpreting the world we live in. The only thing which differentiates
science from religion is the fact that a scientific theory produces
predictions which can be tested objectively (relatively!!). However,
this does not necessarily mean that a religious approach is without
validity. Humans are undoubtably spiritual beings. We don't like to
think about the world as a purely rational place - just see how many
people, who are anything but religious, believe in astrology. It simply
means that those who do believe in a Christian God require some external
focus for their fears, to know that there is a reason for us being here
in the first place. Personally, I'm quite happy at the thought that I'm
here purely by accident, that I will live my life as I think I should
and that when I die, I will turn to dust and fertilise the ground I'm
buried in. What I object to - and this applies to both sides of this
argument - is being told that what I think is *absolutely* wrong ie,
that there is an absolute TRUTH out there. Well there isn't, just a
series of different philosophies by which we can make sense of a
senseless world. None is more true than any other. And that's my
twopennethworth.
Oh and by the way - if you believe in God, then you believe in God. I
think it was Pascal who first came up with this idea that if you were a
gambling man, then you would choose to believe in God, because you had
nothing to lose but everything to gain. But doesn't that smack to much
rationality and not faith?
--
***********************************************
Dr Andrew Doherty
Department of Anatomy
School of Medical Sciences
University Walk
Bristol
UK
BS8 1TD
e-mail Doh...@bsa.bristol.ac.uk
************************************************
User
>>God has never been proven nor disproven,
>> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
>> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
>> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
>> in a BIG way...
>Oh and by the way - if you believe in God, then you believe in God. I
>think it was Pascal who first came up with this idea that if you were a
>gambling man, then you would choose to believe in God, because you had
>nothing to lose but everything to gain. But doesn't that smack to much
>rationality and not faith?
>--
Yes, that's Pascal's Wager, and it's pretty incredible that theists still
use it to justify their faith. I hear it so much, though, I had to
respond.
I am an atheist. But if I followed this reasoning, and adhered to the
Bible because it was a "good bet," would I be saved? I doubt it. An
omniscient God would know that my only motive for following His words was
to save my own skin, just in case I was initially wrong, and he *did*
exist. I'd surely go to hell one way or the other. God, if He exists, is
nothing if not perceptive. To be honest, Pascal's Wager is completely
useless, and, if accepted, would only result in a superficial faith.
Additionally, why should Pascal's Wager only apply to Christianity?
Shouldn't I also believe in Zeus, Shiva, Osiris, etc. to ensure that I'll
go to heaven? I could be wrong about atheism, but if I embrace
Christianity because of Pascal's Wager, I could be wrong about my chosen
type of faith as well.
Please, theists, give this argument up. It's just stupid. There are much
more interesting and valid lines of argument to pursue.
Scott Syoen
sms...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Siegfried
Pascal's Wager is a foolish basis for faith. But it can be useful as
reassurance for someone who wants to be become a Christian but finds he or
she has doubts that they know are unfounded and illogical and just needs
to know that it is a "safe" thing to do so that they can maybe muster a
little more courage to do what they know is right.
-Siegfried
Bill Gascoyne
> God has never been proven nor disproven,
> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense.
> Jerry Teach
Actually, no, because there are far more than just two possibilities. The
expectations of your simple statement "God exists" imply far more than just the
existence of a supreme being. For example, you require that God is male. What
if God is female, or without gender? Or does not meddle in the affairs of humans?
If God exists, It might be nothing like your religion's expectations,
whereas all possible permutations of "God does not exist" are covered by the
atheist's POV. Therefore, your "odds" (if they can be calculated at all) of being
right about God are far lower that 50%.
P.S. Several newsgroups snipped (e.g. sci.bio.misc? sci.geo.geology?).
---
Bill Gascoyne ----- Speak for them?
LSI Logic Corp. LSI |LOGIC| They hardly even
1501 McCarthy Blvd. | | listen to me!
MS E-197 -----
Milpitas, CA 95035 LSI addr: gascan@dcst16 internet: gas...@lsil.com
frank dever
Scott Thomson <tho...@aerg.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
><I cut the rest>
>
>> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his
>> > exsistense. The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no
>> > biggie, I turn to dust at death and didn't count for anything. On the
>> > other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble > > in a BIG way...
>> >
>> > Jerry Teach
>
>Although I would argue with the 50/50 chance I won't here, as it would
>seem rather pointless, but don't you think that fear of post-mortem
>persecution by your god is a rather pathetic and spineless reason to
>demonstrate to the world your "faith" in your belief. I don't care what
>you believe but people should at least have the guts to stand up for
>there convictions without fear,--- or is that what your little book tells
>you to do??
>
>Scott
>
>
Scott,
It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
respectability. They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
fine set of threads,why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice
flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
"What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
deceive."
And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says. No. That's
not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love God above
all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that you believe
"Jesus died for my sins." . You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!! or PROVE
it!! Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
that God has done for you.
BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
the universe was created any differently than science currently
estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
them both!
dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
-frank
>
>
>
>=========================================================================
>Scott Thomson | Tel : (06)201 2937 Fax: (06)201 5030
>Applied Ecology Research Group | Mail: P.O. Box 1
>University of Canberra | BELCONNEN ACT 2616 AUSTRALIA
>=========================================================================
>
-----
I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong.
How can that be? It's a miracle!
Jerry Teach
>
> It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
> enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
> respectability. They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
> fine set of threads,why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
> they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice
various other replys, if you would bother to read the preceding thread before posting
your jibberish you wouldn't look quite so foolish. As for scientific respectability, I
could care less. The persoanl experiences I have had and fullfilled biblical prophesies
I have read lead me to believe in God without the need of science giving it's rubber
stamp of approval. The fact that creation evidence to me is far superior to the
evolutionist argument is just icing on the cake and more reason to believe. However,
even if the laws of science contradicted the possibility of God I would serve him still.
I don't expect you to agree and actually I could care less, my faith doesn't require
your approval anymore than yours requires mine.
flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
> responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
> you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
> else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
> clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
> unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>
I believe the creationists views are valid, you don't agree... Prove it! don't babble
with some strange parables about clothing... I love the way some of you generalize and
group christians into one large fit all catagory. Not all mind you, I've had some very
intelligent, decent, kind athiests present their views without catagorizing or
slandering or bad mouthing the christian faith. Believe me, I listen to what they say.
On the contrary, their are the angry, self rightous athiests such as yourself who for
some unknown reason feel that it is your job to hand christians their heads. You will
probably come back with something to the effect of "your the self rightous ones craming
your God down our throats" Let me remind you that all people are of different mindsets,
personalitys etc.. there are rude christians and there are rude athiests... people are
indeed people... not mindless clones.
> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
> deceive."
I niether attempt or practice to decieve anyone. It is my opinion that if you don't find
Christ, it's your loss. I'm sure you have a simular feeling about christians. I wont
waste my time shoving anything down your throat. My time is much to valuble. I'll spend
the extra time teaching someone who is genuinly seeking the Lord.
>
> And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
> political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
> retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says. No. That's
> not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love God above
> all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that you believe
> "Jesus died for my sins." . You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!! or PROVE
> it!! Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
> your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
> still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
> that God has done for you.
>
I really didn't understand your line of reasoning above. I'll attempt to dicipher the
ranting however. No I don't have to prove that Jesus died for your sins... he said it,
you either believe it or reject it, your choice, I already made mine. I have no reason
to hang my head in shame. I'm quite happy with the person I am today and I believe
Christ has made me much happier and has made me a more self reliant, disciplined, and
patient person. Again, I don't have to prove that to you nor do I feel a need to do it.
Yes, I'm quite a bit better and yes, God has done good things for me.
> BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
> the universe was created any differently than science currently
> estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
> Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
> them both!
>
> dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
>
Excuse me?? Isn't that the reason for these types of newsgroups? Debate? That's the only
messages that I find discussed here... I originally subscribed to this ng to discuss
bible prophesy (alt.bible.prophesy) a week ago. After reading for several days I noticed
that athiest vs christian was the unproclaimed topic here. cross posting gone bananas.
Anyhow, since that is what's being discussed I don't think it would be quite fair for
the athiests to lecture and the christians to respond with posts like: "UH OKAY, UH HUH"
That could get a bit boring on both sides of the fence and you wouldn't get a chance to
rant and rave and babble... Oh, I loved that part about me not having the brains for
it.. you know me so well...Your coming to my wedding next week right? (sheesh) Your
generalizing and claiming my intelligence is low is quite an astounding act to pull off
considering we've never met. Science is all there is??? What a narrow little world you
live in... Science is simply a method for answering questions... not a religon although
some would see it that way. I can see holes in both the creationists model as well as
the evolutionist model. You simply see what you want to see. Science is supposed to be
open to all possibilitys isn't it? You seem to be the type of person that would deny God
to his face. If I could give you unquestionable scientific proof that all the worlds
scientists agreed on (hypothetical situation in progress) would you still deny it? Just
how would you react? I'm afraid that probably you would. You don't want to have to be
accountable for your life or your actions? (just guessing here) Is that why you deny any
views other than those you choose to see?
to quote your message: "Dingbats....everywhere dingbats...
Jerry Teach
Jerry Teach
> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
> > difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> > didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> > in a BIG way...
> >
> > Jerry Teach
> one. Religion and science are simply two ways of looking at and
> interpreting the world we live in. The only thing which differentiates
> science from religion is the fact that a scientific theory produces
> predictions which can be tested objectively (relatively!!). However,
> this does not necessarily mean that a religious approach is without
> validity. Humans are undoubtably spiritual beings. We don't like to
> think about the world as a purely rational place - just see how many
> people, who are anything but religious, believe in astrology. It simply
> means that those who do believe in a Christian God require some external
> focus for their fears, to know that there is a reason for us being here
> in the first place. Personally, I'm quite happy at the thought that I'm
> here purely by accident, that I will live my life as I think I should
> and that when I die, I will turn to dust and fertilise the ground I'm
> buried in. What I object to - and this applies to both sides of this
> argument - is being told that what I think is *absolutely* wrong ie,
> that there is an absolute TRUTH out there. Well there isn't, just a
> series of different philosophies by which we can make sense of a
> senseless world. None is more true than any other. And that's my
> twopennethworth.
>
> think it was Pascal who first came up with this idea that if you were a
> gambling man, then you would choose to believe in God, because you had
> nothing to lose but everything to gain. But doesn't that smack to much
> rationality and not faith?
> --
> Dr Andrew Doherty
> Department of Anatomy
> School of Medical Sciences
> University Walk
> Bristol
> UK
> BS8 1TD
>
> e-mail Doh...@bsa.bristol.ac.uk
>
> ************************************************
Hi, it's rather late where I'm at and I just finished a rather long
reply to someone else so I wont be trying to reply to yours tonight but
I wanted to say thank you for the dignified and kind response. I see
that we disagree but it's nice to disagree amiably. I'm of the mindset
that athiest and christians (and everyone else in the world) should be
able to get along regardless of opposing beliefs or skin colors. Have a
good one!
God Bless (I know ya don't believe in it but what the heck it's not
painfull :]
Jerry Teach
t-files
cw...@eskimo.com (Charles W. Johnson) wrote:
>Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:
>: >> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history
Off topic for sci.geo.geology, please trim your newsgroups & followup.
This newsgroup is for geological sciences and closely related topics.
Sorry but please note that the geology group is currently having
problems as a result of too many cross postings.
t-files
Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Brian Davison wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > Sean Webb
>> > >
>> > > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>> >
frank dever
Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
>> enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
>> respectability. They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
>> fine set of threads,why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
>> they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice
>
>First of all I've admitted that the odds would be considerably less than 50\50 in
>various other replys, if you would bother to read the preceding thread before posting
>your jibberish you wouldn't look quite so foolish.
Oh, I'm sorry.. you make up "considerably less than 50/50"
rules.
>As for scientific respectability, I
>could care less.
Obviously.
> The persoanl experiences I have had and fullfilled biblical prophesies
>I have read lead me to believe in God without the need of science giving it's rubber
>stamp of approval.
So you don't care that evolution is taught in every school in
the nation? And it is almost unanimously accepted as the best
explanation for the mechanism for the variety of life?
>The fact that creation evidence to me is far superior to the
>evolutionist argument is just icing on the cake and more reason to believe.
The only evidence you have for creation is your belief. Your
belief is giving you more reason to believe, not evidence.
>However,
>even if the laws of science contradicted the possibility of God I would serve him still.
And so you should. And so do people who believe in evolution.
>I don't expect you to agree and actually I could care less, my faith doesn't require
>your approval anymore than yours requires mine.
I didn't say it did. However, there are many forces today
requiring my approval of creationism... and thereby their particular
denomination's translation of the bible.
>
> flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
>> responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
>> you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
>> else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
>> clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
>> unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>>
>I believe the creationists views are valid, you don't agree... Prove it! don't babble
>with some strange parables about clothing... I love the way some of you generalize and
>group christians into one large fit all catagory.
Not christians - young earth creationists.
>Not all mind you, I've had some very
>intelligent, decent, kind athiests present their views without catagorizing or
>slandering or bad mouthing the christian faith. Believe me, I listen to what they say.
>On the contrary, their are the angry, self rightous athiests such as yourself who for
I am not an atheist. I am a Christian.
>some unknown reason feel that it is your job to hand christians their heads.
I'd hand you yours, but I can't find it. If this is your
example for me to follow, I'd say I was doing pretty well by
comparison.
>You will
>probably come back with something to the effect of "your the self rightous ones craming
>your God down our throats"
So much for mind reading.
>Let me remind you that all people are of different mindsets,
I love it.
>personalitys etc.. there are rude christians and there are rude athiests... people are
>indeed people... not mindless clones.
Absolutely!
>
>
>> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
>> deceive."
>
>I niether attempt or practice to decieve anyone.
It seems to me that it is yourself that you are practicing on.
>It is my opinion that if you don't find
>Christ, it's your loss. I'm sure you have a simular feeling about christians.
Actually, that's not how I feel at all. I joke about hell, but
when someone actually believes in eternal torment (as you apparently
do) and they tell someone else that they expect to believe it as well,
that they are going there.. it's just a little morbid and
mean-spirited, don't you think?
>I wont
>waste my time shoving anything down your throat. My time is much to valuble. I'll spend
>the extra time teaching someone who is genuinly seeking the Lord.
Right, preach to the choir - like Jesus did.
>
>>
>> And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
>> political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
>> retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says. No. That's
>> not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love God above
>> all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that you believe
>> "Jesus died for my sins." . You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!! or PROVE
>> it!! Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>> your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>> still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>> that God has done for you.
>>
>I really didn't understand your line of reasoning above. I'll attempt to dicipher the
>ranting however. No I don't have to prove that Jesus died for your sins... he said it,
>you either believe it or reject it, your choice, I already made mine. I have no reason
>to hang my head in shame. I'm quite happy with the person I am today and I believe
>Christ has made me much happier and has made me a more self reliant, disciplined, and
>patient person. Again, I don't have to prove that to you nor do I feel a need to do it.
>Yes, I'm quite a bit better and yes, God has done good things for me.
That is no reason to leave your brain at the church door.
>
>> BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
>> the universe was created any differently than science currently
>> estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
>> Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
>> them both!
>>
>> dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
>>
>Excuse me?? Isn't that the reason for these types of newsgroups? Debate? That's the only
>messages that I find discussed here... I originally subscribed to this ng to discuss
>bible prophesy (alt.bible.prophesy) a week ago. After reading for several days I noticed
>that athiest vs christian was the unproclaimed topic here. cross posting gone bananas.
>Anyhow, since that is what's being discussed I don't think it would be quite fair for
>the athiests to lecture and the christians to respond with posts like: "UH OKAY, UH HUH"
or "bananas are the source of gravity!"
or "the cucumber theory of black holes explains creationism
neatly"
>That could get a bit boring on both sides of the fence and you wouldn't get a chance to
>rant and rave and babble... Oh, I loved that part about me not having the brains for
>it.. you know me so well...Your coming to my wedding next week right? (sheesh) Your
>generalizing and claiming my intelligence is low is quite an astounding act to pull off
>considering we've never met. Science is all there is??? What a narrow little world you
>live in... Science is simply a method for answering questions... not a religon although
>some would see it that way. I can see holes in both the creationists model as well as
>the evolutionist model. You simply see what you want to see. Science is supposed to be
>open to all possibilitys isn't it? You seem to be the type of person that would deny God
>to his face. If I could give you unquestionable scientific proof that all the worlds
>scientists agreed on (hypothetical situation in progress) would you still deny it?
Scientific proof that they agree? No. Scientific proof that
the earth is only 6000 years old? Yes, of course I'd believe it. But I
won't accept the genealogies of the bible as proof.
>Just
>how would you react?
I'd be a little upset, seeing thousands of years of physics
refuted. But I wouldn't refuse to accept the stituation. As you have
done.
>I'm afraid that probably you would.
No reason to be afraid - I wouldn't buck unquestionable
scientific proof. I would agree.
>You don't want to have to be
>accountable for your life or your actions? (just guessing here) Is that why you deny any
>views other than those you choose to see?
No, Sigmund.
>
>to quote your message: "Dingbats....everywhere dingbats...
Isn't it the truth? <g>
>
>Jerry Teach
Carmen Toledo
In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
dever) writes:
>
...[snip]
>
> It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
>enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
>respectability.
Today's Christian is also concerned for scientific, historical, and
philosophical truth.
They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
>fine set of threads, why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
>they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice
>flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
>responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
>you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
>else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
>clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
>unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>
> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
>deceive."
>
> And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
>political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
>retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says.
No, you don't mean "retranslation" that is something else,
according to theologians and scholars who study ancient manuscripts
written in different languages. You mean "reinterpretation" of the
Bible to fit a particular belief.
>No. That's not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love
>God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that
>you believe "Jesus died for my sins." You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!!
>or PROVE it!!
That is because they have accepted those ancient manuscripts. You
don't believe what is written in them.
>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>that God has done for you.
This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.
>
> BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
>the universe was created any differently than science currently
>estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
>Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
>them both!
If science is "all that there is," what happen to the poetry of
Robert Frost? Science is not all of knowledge (epistemology).
>
> dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
>
> -frank
Oh, Frankenstein! Isn't that name-calling too? <just kidding>
;-)
frank dever
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <4v51bc$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) writes:
>>In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
>>dever) writes:
>>>
>>>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>>>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>>>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>>>that God has done for you.
>>
>> This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.
No way! I have heard MANY testimonies in which a person has
called himself a "wretch" which is no less a jerk.. and that they were
saved by grace, and nothing else, nothing done by themselves,
therefore they are not one bit better except for the good things God
has done for them.
Saying it's name calling is refuting the gospel.
-frank
>>
>I feel compelled to add my two pennies worth here, not to comment on
>anything, rather to issue a statement. I'm very marginally involved
>in this thread (a comment here and there, no more) coming to it, as I
>stated clearly, from the agnostic side. Though being quite off topic
>(but, hey, that's almost a tradition here) it could've been an
>interesting intellectual argument. Unfortunately most of it is
>conducted at a gutter level, where attempts to demean the opponent
>completely replaced any resemblence of coherence. And I have to admit
>(I would almost say "with shame" but no, I cannot feel ashamed for the
>behavior of others, even if superficially they seem to share my views)
>that most of the worst trangressions come from the atheist/agnostic
>camp. It is indeed rare to see so many messages spewing pure hatred
>as in this case. Carmen, above, calls it "propaganda and name
>calling" but this is an understatement.
>
>So, I'm not going to have anything more to do with this thread and,
>Carmen, I would advise you to do just the same. If you're looking for
>a mature argument with mature people, this is obviously not the place.
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Carmen Toledo
In <3212EE...@ix.netcom.com> Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
...[snip]
>First of all I've admitted that the odds would be considerably less
>than 50\50 in various other replys, if you would bother to read the
>preceding thread before posting your jibberish you wouldn't look quite
>so foolish. As for scientific respectability, I could care less.
Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if it
claims to be the truth. As a physicist and theologian, I would
disagree with you that respectability is not important. ;-)
>The persoanl experiences I have had and fullfilled biblical prophecies
>I have read lead me to believe in God without the need of science
>giving it's rubber stamp of approval.
This last statement is true. You have open up two NEW topics to
this debate: personal experiences and Biblical prophecies. However,
the agnostic and atheist will not what to listen to these topics, and
besides, prophecies are for the Christian believers. [Christians know
this: God talks to His soldiers and keeps them informed to His plans
and nearness of events. (e.g., Matthew 24:4-29)]
>The fact that creation evidence to me is far superior to the
>evolutionist argument is just icing on the cake and more reason to
>believe. However, even if the laws of science contradicted the
>possibility of God I would serve him still.
That is because you and I know Him. Jesus knows his sheep, and his
sheep know Him. ;-)
>I don't expect you to agree and actually I could care less, my faith
>doesn't require your approval anymore than yours requires mine.
>
> flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
>> responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them,
>> as you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no
>> one else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them,
>> they are clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond
>> faith, the unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>>
>I believe the creationists views are valid, you don't agree... Prove
>it! don't babble with some strange parables about clothing... I love
>the way some of you generalize and group christians into one large fit
>all catagory. Not all mind you, I've had some very intelligent,
>decent, kind atheists present their views without catagorizing or
>slandering or bad mouthing the christian faith. Believe me, I listen
>to what they say.
Right, you are. I have a mathematician friend who is a pantheist
and who equates God with the forces of nature. Other friends of mine
are atheists. We all get along fine.
>On the contrary, their are the angry, self rightous athiests such as
>yourself who for some unknown reason feel that it is your job to hand
>christians their heads.
And I know some Christians who want to hand other Christians their
heads too. What a world in which we live!!!
>You will probably come back with something to the effect of "your the
>self rightous ones craming your God down our throats" Let me remind
>you that all people are of different mindsets, personalities, etc..
You are right again. This is called one's worldview in
anthropology.
>there are rude christians and there are rude athiests... people are
>indeed people... not mindless clones.
>> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
>> deceive."
>
>I niether attempt or practice to decieve anyone. It is my opinion that
>if you don't find Christ, it's your loss.
He/she is lost, because you know and accept what is written in the
Scriptures about Christ and the means of salvation.
>I'm sure you have a simular feeling about christians. I wont waste my
>time shoving anything down your throat. My time is much to valuble.
>I'll spend the extra time teaching someone who is genuinly seeking the
>Lord.
>
Ditto.
Well, Jerry, I am over here in sci.physics, and I do enjoy the
discussion. Question: "prophecy" is a noun, and "prophesy" is a verb.
Shouldn't it be alt.bible.prophecy as a newsgroup? Who set up that ng?
Or are you folks uttering prophecies in that ng which I should read?
:-)
> After reading for several days I noticed
>that athiest vs christian was the unproclaimed topic here. cross
>posting gone bananas. Anyhow, since that is what's being discussed I
>don't think it would be quite fair for the athiests to lecture and the
>christians to respond with posts like: "UH OKAY, UH HUH"
>That could get a bit boring on both sides of the fence and you
>wouldn't get a chance to rant and rave and babble... Oh, I loved that
>part about me not having the brains for it.. you know me so
>well...Your coming to my wedding next week right? (sheesh) Your
>generalizing and claiming my intelligence is low is quite an
>astounding act to pull off considering we've never met.
I have seen other Christians do that to others as well. Check out
Mr. Cagle. He is impressive with words.
>Science is all there is??? What a narrow little world you
>live in... Science is simply a method for answering questions... not a
>religon although some would see it that way. I can see holes in both
>the creationists model as well as the evolutionist model.
That is because there are models of creationism -- i.e., there is
more than one interpretation of Genesis and the accounts written
therein.
>You simply see what you want to see. Science is supposed to be
>open to all possibilitys isn't it? You seem to be the type of person
>that would deny God to his face. If I could give you unquestionable
>scientific proof that all the worlds scientists agreed on
>(hypothetical situation in progress) would you still deny it? Just
>how would you react? I'm afraid that probably you would. You don't
>want to have to be accountable for your life or your actions? (just
>guessing here) Is that why you deny any views other than those you
>choose to see?
You mean accountable to Almighty God!
>to quote your message: "Dingbats....everywhere dingbats...
>
>Jerry Teach
Thanks for this enjoyable reading, Jerry!
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <4v51bc$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) writes:
>In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
>dever) writes:
>>
>>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>>that God has done for you.
>
>
Carmen Toledo
In <DwAvo...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
...[snip]
>I feel compelled to add my two pennies worth here, not to comment on
>anything, rather to issue a statement. I'm very marginally involved
>in this thread (a comment here and there, no more) coming to it, as I
>stated clearly, from the agnostic side.
Oh, Mati. I was an agnostic until age 25. ;-)
>Though being quite off topic
>(but, hey, that's almost a tradition here) it could've been an
>interesting intellectual argument. Unfortunately most of it is
>conducted at a gutter level, where attempts to demean the opponent
>completely replaced any resemblence of coherence. And I have to admit
>(I would almost say "with shame" but no, I cannot feel ashamed for the
>behavior of others, even if superficially they seem to share my views)
>that most of the worst trangressions come from the atheist/agnostic
>camp. It is indeed rare to see so many messages spewing pure hatred
>as in this case. Carmen, above, calls it "propaganda and name
>calling" but this is an understatement.
>
>So, I'm not going to have anything more to do with this thread and,
>Carmen, I would advise you to do just the same. If you're looking for
>a mature argument with mature people, this is obviously not the place.
Mati, I didn't originate this subject. It came into sci.physics,
and everyone responded to it. Mature people? There are a few.
Michael Noreen
Replying to Eliyahweh <eli...@execpc.com>
:
: The argument about the drifting continents is in reference to the
: mid-Atlantic ridge where core samples reveal an alternating magnetic field
: which they dates as every 10,000 years. Clearly I do not believe this
: 10,000-year cycle because the span of the Atlantic would probably
: out-date the solar system itself.
That's clever of you, since the frequency isn't at all 10000 years. It
is on average 1.5 million years, varying wildly. Lately the frequency
has been about 100000 years; each flip takes a couple of thousand
years. They do not appear to be linked to mass extinctions. Sorry.
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Judson McClendon
Eliyahweh wrote:
[snip]
> The argument about the drifting continents is in reference to the
> mid-Atlantic ridge where core samples reveal an alternating magnetic field
> which they dates as every 10,000 years. Clearly I do not believe this
> 10,000-year cycle because the span of the Atlantic would probably
> and instinct would imply this gap called the Atlantic Ocean is NOT the
> pushing apart of two worlds in one mere year. Thus with the 3rd day
> of creation (32,000 -25,000 BC) the rise of these plates occurred
> giving them their distinct differences (land plates versus ocean plates).
[snip]
A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." I think Peleg was
about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of
Babel. Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over
the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents? It would
seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those
continents in the first place.
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems
Email: juds...@ix.netcom.com
Eliyahweh
Problem with society is that they view 10-20 years as a good amount
of time for evidence. But grow too fast and you can die fast too.
>> I have a book by Stahler (Promethus Publishers) very deep as
>> regard college physics...and it attacks creationists. Thus the book shows
>> me the idiotic examples creationists fabricate to defend God. God
>> certainly deserves better. I too find it very hard to believe that
>> Pangaea split apart in a single year (the Flood).
> The splitting of Pangaea is, as I understand it, supposed to be caused
>by movement of the plates on which the continents "ride." Continental
>drift is supposed to be an ongoing, slow process. Stresses caused by
>one plate riding over another are supposedly released from time to time
>in earthquake events. This fits neatly with the fact that certain areas
>(like California) have frequent earthquakes.
The argument about the drifting continents is in reference to the
mid-Atlantic ridge where core samples reveal an alternating magnetic field
which they dates as every 10,000 years. Clearly I do not believe this
10,000-year cycle because the span of the Atlantic would probably
out-date the solar system itself. Yet I would look for a correction-curve
and instinct would imply this gap called the Atlantic Ocean is NOT the
pushing apart of two worlds in one mere year. Thus with the 3rd day
of creation (32,000 -25,000 BC) the rise of these plates occurred
giving them their distinct differences (land plates versus ocean plates).
>> > Researchers 300 years ago didn't refer to Pangaea. Nor did they
>> >refer to carbon-14 dating, plate techtonics, writings of Charles Darwin,
>> >etc. Three hundred years ago they weren't aware of these things.
>> >And your point was ... ?????
C-14 was discovered thru nuclear testing after World War 2....
I think Libby wrote his research in 1956 [?]....
(lot of important world-changing things happened that year besides my birth)
>> That knowledge should be presented as NEW concepts which they are.
>> What about the OLD concepts....as in Noah's Flood created the Ice Age
>> which existed AFTER the Flood only.
> It is generally accepted in the scientific community that new ideas
>can and do force us to modify or abandon old ideas. Since knowledge is
>written down and passed from generation to generation, it is cummulative;
>it also requires "housecleaning" and discarding of old ideas when they
>are clearly invalid.
> The oft-cited example of this in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific
>Revolutions" is the phlogiston theory of fire. Phlogiston was basically
>the old Greek idea that fire was an element. Once fire was understood
>as a chemical reaction (rapid oxidation) the phlogiston theory was thrown
>away.
> There are many old ideas which have been discarded:
> Diseases are caused by "bad air" (root of the word 'malaria').
> Disease can be caused by witches (thankfully, we no longer try people
> for witchcraft like they did in Salem in 1692).
> Spontaneous generation of life, e.g. a horsehair that falls into water
> can spontaneously turn into a living worm.
> The sun revolves around the earth.
VERY GOOD EXAMPLES...however be aware of the fact that when these OLD
theories had been created millenia ago...there were those who opposed
thru natural logic. That is the war between Moses and Egypts schools,
the same war I fight. I was taught the lie that Columbus' world said the
world was flat. Did Europe forget the Greeks calculated the sphere !
Rather not until the big 500-year holiday do they publish that Europe
knew the spherical world as is..presuming Atlantic and Pacific as ONE ocean,
while Columbus swore it to be calculated smaller and shorter to India.
Whole different story than the lie presented and remembered in most
modern books. So dont tell me about trusting ANY school or teachers or
researchers. For relgion I ask....how come God killed all Sodom but
with the 10 plagues did not kill all Egypt? Shouldnt the 10 plagues
have been Egypts Armageddon so that these Jews could just sit born again
saved into their new world once ALL Egyptians were wiped out !
Why did they have to leave ! If BOTH Egypt & Canaan could be viewed
as alien dwelling waiting to be a nation for God, then shouldnt Egypt have
become part of the deal. Your answers will NOT explain this question
because you do not know how God works. God DOES require you be in the
LITERAL right place at the right time...and it IS scientific as created by him.
On this day BOTH sides science and religion are being judged for their error
of how they view God.
>> I merely say that scales must be determined for all radiation clocks.
>> I dont see us using Egyptian water clocks or pendelums anymore...
>> yet I bet Egyptians priests would have cursed any effort
>> to create digital clocks. So too...your radiation clocks are too NEW
>> and truth WILL replace them by discovering accuracy in curves.
> Modern clocks are far more accurate than any ancient water clock.
NOT my point...rather that Egypt would have prevented the success
you have achieved because they felt they had reached defined success.
So too YOUR accuracy gives YOU men the idea that you have reached
defined success in accuracy, and YOU too wish to stifle a further
refinement....the placing of correction-curves which will someday
prove the Bible history correct. If 6000 years of dead humans woke up,
you would have a very big problem telling them your view of history.
Instead you would have to take your science...and do what? toss it as
religion thinks you will have to? wrong....you will have to discover
why the innacurate readings...correction-curves due to changes. That
is why I work toward that world God is bringing next year.
> BTW, radiation clocks are not the only way to estimate the age of
>things. Every geological or chemical process (weathering, oxidation)
>happens at an estimable rate, and time spans can be inferred from these
>rates. More importantly, all the time estimates which are arrived at
>by various means must be reconciled with each other. Current estimates
>for the times of the pleistocene, the ordovician, and older periods are
>based upon reconciliation of age estimates which were arrived at in
>various ways. These ages are revised from time to time, but they have
>not undergone orders-of-magnitude corrections in this century.
I have read these things....volcanoes come back faster with life than
calculated. Niagra wears down faster than calculated, the Nile does too.
Those scholars favored in control estimate very slow change. As Charles Taze
Russell said once...what happens when you throw in a brick and the force
buries it into the Nile mud you date as 1000 years older!
>> Like Egypt...your governments will fall, before those who love truth
>> discover truth. It has been the lesson for millenia. You think religion
>> falls, and then truth pops up...but only if religion is the ruling government.
>> It has always been governments that fall, permitting truth to pop up.
Governments stifle truth...afterall stifling occurs by those who rule.
> *** We clearly have different notions about what constitutes truth.
>> Any scientific hypothesis is also as weak as relgion until research
>> attempts to discover it as true.
>Science does a pretty good job of proving many hypotheses. I am willing
>to bet my life, and the lives of my kids, on the applied scientific
>knowledge of those who produce vaccines and those who build passenger
>airplanes. Even after the downing of TWA flight 800 last month, I'd
>get on a Boeing 747 today if I needed to --- because Boeing has shown
>time and again that they know how to build airplanes.
Not if they cut back workers and keep young new brains who think they know more.
>> Religion merely has more lazy butts than science
>> believing we dont need the proof. But we do, if we want our children
>> to keep God above scientists.
> If you look for proof of a theory, you must be prepared to accept evidence
>that disproves the idea. Otherwise, you are just playing a time-wasting
>game. Would you accept evidence that proved that there was never a global
>flood since mammals began walking the earth? Honestly?
I say yes when I havent researched yet....but knowing the evidence I have
I cannot say yes because MY evidence cannot be curved NOR tossed. YOUR evidence
can be curved so that I have both science and biblical truth versus your
science ONLY. Now how can you take sides on science ONLY when the Bible
makes available both truth and science! Afterall I also fight against
superstitions....as in religion without science...but superstition also includes
pseudo-science...science without biblical facts.
>> The content of mammals (life) is carbon which maximum is 50,000-70,000 yrs.
>> The 70,000 is very shaky faint C-14. Subtract the 20,000 shift from the Flood
>> gives us 30,000 to a shaky faint 50,000. When dating life by other radiation
>> or means, it is NOT the content of life itself, but material which has entered
>> the life maintaining its own age. If I die today choking on a 1932 penny,
>> it doesnt make my death in the year 1932. And if the copper material
>> dates as 1700 how much worse is that ! There are Redwoods 1000 years old.
>> Cut down today...making a table...if the sliver of wood for C-14 testing
>> comes from the middle whose rings died 1000 years ago...the table will
>> be declared 1000 years old. Too many problems to be constructing your
>> chronology so quick as your generation has done.
>C-14 is only one way of dating things, and there is a limit to the
>time for which C-14 decay is an accurate yardstick. Again, time
>estimates come from several techniques.
Those who defend the Bible are not special gods that they have more
hours than scientists so as to cover ALL topics at once. You yourself
half but only one field and you trust others research. But you CHOOSE
who those others are going to be. Same with those who chose for or against
Jesus concerning political involvement by Jerusalem's religions.
>> I believe ALL creation myths ARE the creation of the CURRENT world
>> by Noah's Flood. Calendar dating cycles prove it...it is what I study.
> But you are assuming then that all peoples had access to some common
>knowledge or evidence of creation .... or that they were present at the
>time of creation. Or, you are assuming that all people descended from
>common ancestors who were intelligent enough to accurately record what
>happened. Given the wide variety of conflicting creation stories which
>have been handed down in various cultures, I can't believe that any of
>them are accurate factual accounts.
I dont have to assume...it is too clear that their relgions came from
Noah. That is the system of priests (schools) which Nimrod invented led to
many religions altered from the scientific and religious truth.
>> >> > Can you refer me to any of the original documents in Chinese?
>> >> >I have someone who can translate them for me.... I wouldn't rely
>> >> >on anyone else to translate tham.
>> My sources are American books stating the epoch is 2953 BC...and one book
>> referring to the Flood which divided the world into 3 sovereigns...
>> (Noah's sons). If this were myth we would expect 4 for 4 directions.
> Titles / authors / publishers ?
See my post on....new friends who offer to help. Imply they wish to see your
sources. And then while 68 of your books are setting in their house 1000 miles
away, they dont email a thing.
>> >No, deja vu is a feeling of having been somewhere or having seen something
>> >before... French for "seen before." It is a 'false memory' phenomenon,
>> >though some believe it to be evidence of reincarnation.
>> We view deja vu in oppsite ways. You note the glass as empty...knowing
>> positively that you did not see it before. I am not the fool to feel
>> psychic...but as a realist, my deja vu knows that the memory is NOT
>> false but similar...what you see is a shadow of something you remember.
>> Example...once dreaming that stepping on large pearls are painful
>> and saying this in my sleep...I went over my words for the past 2 days to
>> realize I had told someone how as a child my mother would roll her feet
>> on a golf ball. Thus my quickness to recognize the truth from where
>> the FALSE memory comes from. It was INDEED ***seen before***. My biblical
>> research thus scans ALL the things I remember to determine who. what, where
>> the world went wrong in what it believes.
>Interesting. But what you are describing is an actual recollection of
>something which happened to you. I wouldn't call this deja vu ... but
>now we are arguing semantics.
>> NO. I trust you. I still learn from you. I do not need some BETTER
>> source than you, demanding you present it. It is not important because
>> we have a history where 1000's of our sources were liars.
>OK. Again, please read my recent posting in talk.origins under the subject
>'Glaciers were here.' I have two sources for the information in that
>posting; one is a pamphlet from the Illinois State Geological Survey
>(cited in the posting) and the other is first-hand observation.
>> That's the point...I ALWAYS get the short stick...not witty enough
>> to get the better of others...they get me..which is why I've reached my
>> financial end.
> Sorry to hear that. BTW, what do you do for a living? I write
>computer software.
I was an AMC Chrysler worker....who got stuck for 6 years at a Hardees
getting 10-cent raises to $5. Live off of 14 credit cards, and really
dont care what happens now that my unemployment compensation ran out.
>> They showed video of Koresh...so I've heard his reasoning. Obsurd is
>> not merely hearing what seems shocking. Truth can be shocking. Obsurd
>> is inconsistent. Koresh developed contrary to his own words from
>> previous years. Like a Hitler he viewed his changes as NOT needing
>> evidence from outside sources than his interpretation of the Bible.
>> None of MY sources are modern religious. They are astronomy books,
>> mythology books...Egyptian, Assyrian, kinglists. Your sources are my
>> sources, I just have an eye to see what you overlook in those sources.
> I have the greatest trust in modern scientific works, but they must
>be old enough to have been examined critically for a while. I'd say
>that I am most trusting of widely-published scientific works which
>have been around for ten to twenty years. I'd put little trust in
>any mythology .... these are made-up stories, after all.
Mythology is astronomy. Stories of the dog such as Canis which stands on
the west horizon. They are dated events of major global importance.
>> >Subject, keywords, etc.?
>> calendar chronology Egypt epoch era dynasty cycle
Gvwm...@netcom.com
> Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if it
>claims to be the truth. As a physicist and theologian, I would
>disagree with you that respectability is not important. ;-)
Dr Andrew J. Doherty
into this thread and to treat it with the kind of seriuousness it
deserves. Science, religion and art are all ways of interpretimg the
world. I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
accept anything but science as valid. Afterall, many scientific theories
of yesteryear have now been superceeded through new discovery or
interpretation; that is the way science is. Just because we have no
methodology of proving the existence of God, it doesn't follow that God
does not actually exist. I just don't happen to believe that he does, at
least in the sense of an all powerful, all knowing deity. The forces
which drive life on this Earth do not seem to have any motives, or any
plan other than the maintenance of life itself - and even that is going
a bit far for me. I take the view that life on Earth is a result of
countless accidents and the direction in which those accidents have
driven life have been determined by environmental factors, and the
ability of any particular organism to survive in the environment it
finds itself, coupled with its ability to form relationships with other
organisms. After life has been formed or appeared in the primordial soup
or created out of nothing, there is really no need for a God. What
happened to actually get life going on this planet, however, is still
very much an open question. If you want to argue creation ideas, then
this is the place to start. THere is too much evidence for the dating of
rocks, and for evolution as a means of generating biological diversity
through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
who knows.
TTFN
Saulius Muliolis
In message <3217BC...@ix.netcom.com> - Judson McClendon
<juds...@ix.netcom.com>Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:00:33 -0500 writes:
>>
>A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
>were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
>was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." I think Peleg was
>about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of
>Babel. Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over
>the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents? It would
>seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those
>continents in the first place.
Ho hum. Again, we have a creationist proposing an incredibly fast
rate of tectonic motion. He is claiming that continents moved
thousands of miles in just a few years, when real science tells
us it took hundreds of millions of years for them to get to where
they are.
The big problem is that we can observe the motion of the tectonic
plates today, and see the effect. A movement of only inches every
year is enough to cause earthquakes all the way up the richter
scale. These quakes cause tsunami large enough to swamp cities
and break up previously solid rock. Imagine the effect of quakes
a few thousand times more severe, as would be the result in
Judson's hypothesis. Mountains would crumble into rubble. The
energy released would probably melt the entire crust.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A.
Heinlein.
The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Saulius Muliolis muli...@en.com
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html
Dr Andrew J. Doherty
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <4v51bc$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) writes:
> >In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
> >dever) writes:
> >>
> >>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
> >>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
> >>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
> >>that God has done for you.
> >
> > This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.
> >
> anything, rather to issue a statement. I'm very marginally involved
> in this thread (a comment here and there, no more) coming to it, as I
> (but, hey, that's almost a tradition here) it could've been an
> interesting intellectual argument. Unfortunately most of it is
> conducted at a gutter level, where attempts to demean the opponent
> completely replaced any resemblence of coherence. And I have to admit
> (I would almost say "with shame" but no, I cannot feel ashamed for the
> behavior of others, even if superficially they seem to share my views)
> that most of the worst trangressions come from the atheist/agnostic
> camp. It is indeed rare to see so many messages spewing pure hatred
> as in this case. Carmen, above, calls it "propaganda and name
> calling" but this is an understatement.
>
> So, I'm not going to have anything more to do with this thread and,
> Carmen, I would advise you to do just the same. If you're looking for
> a mature argument with mature people, this is obviously not the place.
>
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Jerry Teach
> Ta very much, I just thought that I would try and get some adult comment
> into this thread and to treat it with the kind of seriuousness it
> deserves. Science, religion and art are all ways of interpretimg the
> world. I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
> accept anything but science as valid. Afterall, many scientific theories
> of yesteryear have now been superceeded through new discovery or
> interpretation; that is the way science is. Just because we have no
> methodology of proving the existence of God, it doesn't follow that God
True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
be living a bit closer to you :]
> does not actually exist. I just don't happen to believe that he does, at
> least in the sense of an all powerful, all knowing deity. The forces
> which drive life on this Earth do not seem to have any motives, or any
> plan other than the maintenance of life itself - and even that is going
> a bit far for me. I take the view that life on Earth is a result of
> countless accidents and the direction in which those accidents have
An accident with amazing precision... I'm no expert and correct me if
I'm wrong but I've heard it said that if the earth would moved off it's
axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet. I've also
heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the prerequisites of a
life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
debris forming a dictionary. Sorry to be so unscientific but I'll get to
my explanation for that a bit farther down in this reply.
> driven life have been determined by environmental factors, and the
> ability of any particular organism to survive in the environment it
> finds itself, coupled with its ability to form relationships with other
> organisms. After life has been formed or appeared in the primordial soup
> or created out of nothing, there is really no need for a God. What
> happened to actually get life going on this planet, however, is still
> very much an open question. If you want to argue creation ideas, then
> this is the place to start. THere is too much evidence for the dating
Actually it's the place for me to bow out :] I'm definatly not an
authority on creation science...actually my science knowledge in general
is very scare. I've read the arguments on both sides and done a little
research on my own to decipher the arguments going on in here. My faith
is based mainly on personal experiences which really aren't accepted
material for an argument of this type. I'm sure there are some very
intelectual and knowledgable creationists in here that would love to
take up the conversation. I'd just hate to make an idiot of myself
jumping into an argument in which I have no valid contribution to make.
If you'd like to hear some of my personel experiences, let me know. I'd
love to hear what you think caused them, just out of curiousity. Sorry
if I let ya down. I just prefer to be honest from the start. I've seen
people on both sides of the coin jump in over their heads and try to
compensate by typing in other peoples articles or making illogical
arguments and then when both sides get frustrated the personal attacks
start up :] I never have been too much into science. I'm a musician..
can't stand numbers but I sure love notes :]
> rocks, and for evolution as a means of generating biological diversity
> through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
> creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
> who knows.
>
God Bless (I ask God to bless everyone, take no offense)
Jerry Teach
Stewart T. Ewing
Jerry Teach wrote regarding Creation VS Evolution:
>
> ... Actually it's the place for me to bow out :] I'm definatly not an
> authority on creation science...actually my science knowledge in general
> is very scare. I've read the arguments on both sides and done a little
> research on my own to decipher the arguments going on in here. My faith
> is based mainly on personal experiences which really aren't accepted
> material for an argument of this type. I'm sure there are some very
> intelectual and knowledgable creationists in here that would love to
> take up the conversation. I'd just hate to make an idiot of myself
> jumping into an argument in which I have no valid contribution to make.
> If you'd like to hear some of my personel experiences, let me know. I'd
> love to hear what you think caused them, just out of curiousity. Sorry
> if I let ya down. I just prefer to be honest from the start. I've seen
> people on both sides of the coin jump in over their heads and try to
> compensate by typing in other peoples articles or making illogical
> arguments and then when both sides get frustrated the personal attacks
> start up :] I never have been too much into science. I'm a musician..
> can't stand numbers but I sure love notes :]
>
>
> > through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
> > creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
> > who knows.
> >
>
>
> Jerry Teach
On the Contrary Jerry! In my opinion, personal testimony is every bit
of a match for scientific fact. Look at it this way. Science is
limited in its method due to its inability to explain, measure, or
express the supernatural or anything else the finite human mind is
unable to understand. For man to assume that everything must be
explainable or measurable is even more of a stretch than believing in a
supernatural God.
Stewart Ewing
Thomas Scharle
Article: 234943 of talk.origins
Path: news.nd.edu!ubiquity.cc.nd.edu!scharle
From: sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle)
Newsgroups: alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.religion.christian,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.bio.misc,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
Date: 19 Aug 1996 14:43:53 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Lines: 34
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4v9uj9$n...@news.nd.edu>
References: <N.080996....@196-7-124-165.iafrica.com> <320DA3...@ix.netcom.com> <3211EF...@bsa.bristol.ac.uk> <3212F1...@ix.netcom.com> <321826...@bsa.bristol.ac.uk> <321845...@ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ubiquity.cc.nd.edu
X-newsreader: xrn 7.03
To: jte...@ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.nd.edu alt.christnet.evangelical:22090 alt.christnet.philosophy:21585 alt.christnet.theology:34876 alt.philosophy.objectivism:133671 alt.religion.christian:144227 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:34795 sci.astro:131776 sci.bio.misc:4461 sci.skeptic:194728 talk.atheism:39308 talk.origins:234943
Is there any reason why this should be posted to 21 groups?
No. That's why I'm trimming the groups drastically. I'm e-mailing
this to Jerry, so he will find it, and he has the opportunity of retracting
it in public.
In article <321845...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[...]
|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
|> be living a bit closer to you :]
[...]
Not again????!!!!!
The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
Everybody (except for a few crackpots, we always have crackpots
among us :-o) knew that the earth was round (like a ball or a globe or
a sphere) at the time of Columbus. If they "laughed at Columbus"
it wasn't because he said the world was round, it was because he
was *wrong* in thinking it was so small.
--
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
"In this house, we obey the laws
of thermodynamics" Homer Simpson
--
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
"In this house, we obey the laws
of thermodynamics" Homer Simpson
Gvwm...@netcom.com
> I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
>accept anything but science as valid.
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>An accident with amazing precision... I'm no expert and correct me if
>I'm wrong
> but I've heard it said that if the earth would moved off it's
>axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
>and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet.
inch closer and farther away than earth.
Michael Huemer
muli...@en.com (Saulius Muliolis) writes:
>The big problem is that we can observe the motion of the tectonic
>plates today, and see the effect. A movement of only inches every
>year is enough to cause earthquakes all the way up the richter
Hey, maybe God quashed the earthquakes. ;)
>scale. These quakes cause tsunami large enough to swamp cities
>and break up previously solid rock. Imagine the effect of quakes
Hey, an explanation for the great flood!
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
\ /
Bernhard Schopper
"Stewart T. Ewing" <tmc...@nat.is.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Science is
>limited in its method due to its inability to explain, measure, or
>express the supernatural or anything else the finite human mind is
>unable to understand.
From the dawn of civilization, when human sacrifices were made to appease
the gods of the sky, to modern times, when churches are still capable of
enslaving their congregations by brainwashing the members with
superstition and hocus-pocus, Man's inability, or inherent laziness to
find out the causes of things, has, and will always make him vulnerable
to the exploits of religious enterprises.
Bernie
Thomas Scharle
Praktikant dataflow bib
Stewart T. Ewing wrote:
> Science is
> limited in its method due to its inability to explain, measure, or
> express the supernatural or anything else the finite human mind is
> unable to understand.
First, you should define "supernatural" and "understanding".
And second, the fact that the human mind is finite does not mean that
there are phenomena that are not understandable to the mind per se.
You must not assume that humans have the biggest brains in the universe or
that we will never be able to expand the capabilities of our minds.
And if you define "understanding" as "beeing able to use something" you've lost
anyway since we have mathematics, axiomatic theory and all that stuff
to calculate and use things we don't understand intuitively.
As evidence of that you might look up "world equations".
I remember such a thing from Schroedinger. (But I can be wrong
about the name. Was it Heisenberg? Maxwell?)
In that way we are IN PRINCIPLE (but not currently in reality) able to
calculate the whole universe including the human mind.
Obviously there are several things my brain cannot do:
* Simulate itself
* Store the positions and connections of all its neurons in itself
* ...(I hope you get the point)
But they don't change the fact that the human brain is understandable unless
your definition of "understandable" means something of the two points
above.
The philosophy I learned at school (materialism in the marxist sense)
makes the basic assumption that objective reality carries the property
of beeing understandable (again in principle and regardless of practical
limitations such as the number of neurons in the universe). I believe
that more or less the same philosophy is what gives scientists the hope
to tackle things they don't understand at the beginning and leads them
to discoveries people would never make in the name of their particular
religions.
Volker
R. J. Register
Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
> >accept anything but science as valid.
Science was once defined as a process for determining truth. This
process involved 5 steps:
1) gather observations
2) formulate a theory to explain the observations
3) make predictions based on the theory
4) develop a test to determine if the perdictions where accurate
this test would involve a expermimental group and a control group
5) evaulate the theory based on the new observations from the test
repeat as needed until the theory (and its predictions) fit all the
known facts.
In the area of origins, the use of science is very problematic.
How do we observe things before there is an observer?
How can we with intellectual honesty formulate a theory based on so few
observable facts?
How do we provide a control and test group?
How do we live long enough to evaulate our theory based on perdictions
which require "geologic ages" to transpire?
I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
Do not blindly accept "science" any more than you would "religon".
---
#include <disclaimer>
Basic Software Manufacturing - If we don't have it, we'll MAKE it.
Blue Smoke & Mirrors - The Magic of Automation.
The meaning of the company's TLA changes as needed.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
>and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet.
You're wrong.
Roamer
In article <4va9qb$i...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwm...@netcom.com says:
>
>> I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
>>accept anything but science as valid.
>because science is valid. religion is invalid.
>
>
Please qualify what you are saying. Your emotional involvement with
the subject is not a valid qualifier.
Let's see if I can remember a similar statement concocted by my nephew
when he was in junior high....hmm.....
How about "Math is useless and my teacher is stupid!"
Will Howard
In article <32191D18...@southeast.net>, "R. J. Register"
<regi...@southeast.net> wrote:
> Science was once defined as a process for determining truth. This
> process involved 5 steps:
> 1) gather observations
> 2) formulate a theory to explain the observations
> 3) make predictions based on the theory
> 4) develop a test to determine if the perdictions where accurate
> this test would involve a expermimental group and a control group
> 5) evaulate the theory based on the new observations from the test
>
> repeat as needed until the theory (and its predictions) fit all the
> known facts.
>
> In the area of origins, the use of science is very problematic.
>
> How do we observe things before there is an observer?
> How can we with intellectual honesty formulate a theory based on so few
> observable facts?
> How do we provide a control and test group?
> How do we live long enough to evaulate our theory based on perdictions
> which require "geologic ages" to transpire?
>
> I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
> scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
>
[This is a paraphrasing of something I posted earlier, but I think it's
worth repeating.]
R.J. Register may be confused about the idea of science being "predictive,"
and seems to think that hypothesis formation/testing can only be done
forward in time. In fact "hindcasting" is an important process in
developing/testing
many types of models and hypotheses (economic, meteorologic, sociological,
etc.).
A problem of many aspects of earth sciences (and of archeology) is that we
cannot
"experiment" on the system we're trying to study (evolution for example)
in the same sense that experimental chemists and physicists can. We have
to make use of
nature (or God if you like) having already run the experiment, and we have
to _infer_
the experiment (there are lab experiments on evolution, but as a geologist
I'll just stick to
the "inductive" part of the science). In the case of evolution, we go
through a iterative process of coming up with models, theories, or
hypotheses that explain the process, then see if the explanations are
consistent with the results of the "experiment" (in this case the geological
record). We can do some "experimentation" in the sense that we can
simulate the system with mathematical models, and again, test the
simulated outcome against the geological record to see if the idea fits.
When evidence is found that doesn't fit, back to the drawing board to
modify (or abandon) the model. The other problem is, of course, that the
"outcome" is
imperfectly recorded, and we cannot (so far) travel back in time to watch
the experiment unfold. I suppose one could say that God hasn't left
thorough lab notes.
> Do not blindly accept "science" any more than you would "religon".
True. And the process of doing science is the very antithesis of blind
acceptance. The process of science is not so much a search for "TRUTH" as
for _understanding_.
The current UNDERSTANDING, that life has arisen and taxa have evolved and
been replaced by other groups over billions of years is not much in
dispute. This _understanding_ of earth history is not
debated as "theory" because accepting at least this much lets us get on
with the job of further understanding the world; seeing what else we can
learn. This consensus is not the same as blind acceptance.
The above basic idea is based on some geological principles (assumptions):
that sedimentary strata overlying others were laid down _later_, that the
vast sedimentary columns we observe were laid down over some large
intervals of time, that we understand the decay constants of some isotopes
well enough to give us a reliable chronology of earth history, and that we
understand the history of life on earth to have begun some 3+ billion
years ago. We assume that the fossils we find in the sedimentary rocks are
the remains of organisms that were living and died at the time the
sediments were laid down. Etc. etc.
If all these assumptions are wrong, then we would have to resort to some
other explanations for the observations. So far, though, they have not
fundamentally been proven wrong.
It's worth pointing out that astrophysical observations have played a key
role in gaining insight into fundamental physics processes, and these
observations are in essence a "fossil" record - much of the radiation (in
whatever part of the spectrum) that reaches observatories was generated by
events that occurred a long time ago. Physicists may want to weigh in here
with some more insight.
This process of seeking insight into our origins (evolutionary,
astrophysical, etc.) is scientific.
R.J. is correct in pointing out one difficulty - the lack of "control
groups" in the sense they are used in, say, clinical trials.
*********************************************************************
Will Howard Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-80
Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
Antarctic CRC Homepage: http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/antcrc.html
E-mail: Will....@antcrc.utas.edu.au
Phones:
61 3 62207888 (sec'y) 61 2 62207859 (office) 61 3 62202973 (fax)
*********************************************************************
tr...@one.net
Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
>didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
>in a BIG way...
>
>Jerry Teach
Trouble? Isn't God supposed to be forgiving? I went to church, and I
went to chemistry and physics. I simply followed what lines of
thought made more sense to me. Was this divine intervention? Was
this the devil's work? Or was it my free will that made me decide?
The free will that God gave me. Gave me? What am I, God's toy? Are
we just some big ant farm for Him to amuse himself with?
I find just as much proff of Greek Mythology as I do of Christianity.
Why is it wrong? Ever notice how all religions teach morals? How all
religions have striking similarities throughout them. I believe
religion to have evolved from a very old and primitive system of
keeping people in line, recording history, entertaining, and
maintaining power.
Now, I'm not saying there isn't a God. Perhaps God lives in the
uncertainty principle as Steven Hawkings suggests. If that is the
case, and all God can do is modify parameters that will not affect our
immediate measurements, then all of Physics holds, and evolution is
still possible. What's the difference if God has existed for eternity
or the Universe has?
Brian
Andrew J. Doherty
I never have been too much into science. I'm a musician..
> can't stand numbers but I sure love notes :]
>
> Jerry Teach
Well that makes two of us - musically I mean. I'm also no expert on
creation theory (if it can be called theory rather than belief), but at
least it's an interesting topic for argument.
Thomas Scharle
In article <4vbjgr$i...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
|> >|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
|> >|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
|> >|> be living a bit closer to you :]
|> > This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
|>
|> of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
|> sail there and back.
Har, har, har. I guess you believe the old song "They all laughed
at Christopher Columbus 'cause he said the world was round".
Maybe that's why Torquemada burned him at the stake?
Did people believe that the earth was flat before Columbus proved
them wrong? Not so, says this interesting short book:
Russell, Jeffrey Burton: Inventing the flat earth; Praeger, 1991.
There is also an essay by Stephen Jay Gould in his collection
"Dinosaur in a Haystack"; Harmony Books, 1995.
One can also examine the article on "Earth" in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica for some of the early theories among the Greeks.
Aristotle, in his "On the Heavens" offers some good arguments as
to why the earth is spherical, and gives an estimate of the
circumference of the earth of 400,000 stadia, or somewhere around
twice the modern value.
Here are some citations from Russell:
"Columbus most carefully consulted Pierre D'Ailly (1350-1420) ...
who discussed the earth's volume, the poles, climatic zones, and
the length of degrees." [page 14. In footnote this continues]
"D'Ailly completed his _Imago_mundi_ about 1410 ... Columbus's own
copy of D'Ailly is densely annotated."
"Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
... Jean Buridan (c. 1300-1358) and Nicole Oresme (c. 1320-1382) ...
even discussed the rotation of the earthly sphere" [page 15]
"the French _Image_du_monde_ (1246-1248) ... says that 'the world
is round like a playing ball ...' William Caxton translated this
work as _The_Mirror_of_the_World_ in 1480." [page 16]
Then he mentions Dante (1265-1321) (IMHO the _Divine_Comedy_
doesn't make much sense on a flat earth), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
(_Summa_Theologiae_ in the first question mentions the round earth,
although admittedly that could mean just a disk, but Russell cites
Ia: q68 a2; _De_coelo_et_mundo_ 2:28; _Commentarium_in_II_
Sentientiarum_), and Bede (673-735) as maintaining a spherical
earth. Augustine (354-430) knows about the theory, but thinks that
there are no people inhabiting the other side (_City_of_God_ 16:9).
(BTW, Russell suggests that this may have been a source of confusion
to modern readers -- there is a distinction between saying that the
earth is like a sphere, and saying that there are people, called
"antipodes", living on the other side.)
Russell says that he found very few writers in Europe in classical
times or thereafter who said that the earth is flat -- of course,
there are a couple, no age is spared its crackpots. And what is it
that Columbus did that would give anyone the idea that the world
wasn't flat? He didn't reach any previously known lands by a
different route. He didn't sail around the world.
An interesting point: "A pictorial demonstration of the round earth
in the early Middle Ages is in the portraits of kings holding the
symbols of their power. One standard item of regalia is the royal
'orb', which the king holds in his hand. It is a golden ball
representing the earth, surmounted by a cross indicating Christ's
sovereignty over the earth ..." [page 21]. That sure makes it sound
like a ball-shaped earth was rather widely accepted (I don't think
that you could get all of those medieval kings to endorse an idea
which was controversial).
He was not mentioned by Russell, but one famous medieval writer,
Chaucer (died 1400), has a book on the Astrolabe. One of the things
which he teaches the reader is how to determine one's latitude. He
doesn't even seem to make such a big deal about the fact that any
point on earth _has_ a latitude, that is, that the earth has a
curved surface. That is because navigators had been using the
astrolabe for measuring latitude for a long time.
Russell suggests that the idea that Columbus proved the earth
is round gained its popularity in Washington Irving's "The Life and
Voyages of Christopher Columbus". This story by Irving does have the
tall tale about Columbus and his contemporaries -- that many of the
scholars argued against Columbus's belief that the earth being
round -- but even Irving has to admit that some knew that the earth
was round, and disagreed with Columbus only on details. (And, BTW,
Columbus _was_ wrong about the size of the earth -- it is much larger
than he said. Just think about whether Columbus would have attempted
to reach the Indies had he known the size of the Atlantic _and_
Pacific Oceans lying ahead of him.)
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>In the area of origins, the use of science is very problematic.
>How do we observe things before there is an observer?
we make assumptions, like if there was no gravity, then people
wouldn't invent the wheel, or some such thing.
>How can we with intellectual honesty formulate a theory based on so few
>observable facts?
like above.
>How do we provide a control and test group?
you don't have to. unless you're a solopsist, which means that you
wouldn't even be having this discussion.
>How do we live long enough to evaulate our theory based on perdictions
>which require "geologic ages" to transpire?
oh you mean like the life span of bacteria?
geologic ages?
nice troll.
>I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
>scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
it's better (as in has more evidence) than claiming that the holocost
didn't happen.
>Do not blindly accept "science" any more than you would "religon".
you can't blindly accept science. science sits right in your face and
says if you drop this book on my foot, it will hurt.
Gvwm...@netcom.com
Frank
Who observes the observer in this process? and he sure has a good point.
Christopher C. Wood
|> One can also examine the article on "Earth" in the Encyclopaedia
|> Britannica for some of the early theories among the Greeks.
|> Aristotle, in his "On the Heavens" offers some good arguments as
|> to why the earth is spherical, and gives an estimate of the
|> circumference of the earth of 400,000 stadia, or somewhere around
|> twice the modern value.
Another greek estimate (having something to do with a Well in
Alexandria, and its shadow) worked out to 25,000 miles, which is quite
good.
|> Columbus _was_ wrong about the size of the earth -- it is much
|> larger than he said. Just think about whether Columbus would have
|> attempted to reach the Indies had he known the size of the Atlantic
|> _and_ Pacific Oceans lying ahead of him.)
I can think of three possibilities:
(1) Columbus knew nothing about the Americas, and was drastically
wrong about the distance across Asia, the western ocean, and the size
of the earth, (any one of which would have been a fatal mistake;
C. and crew consumed more than half there food, before they sighted
land) or
(2) C. knew the size of the earth (hey -- some greek in Egypt got it
pretty darn close nearly 2,000 years before C. set sail), and knew
that there was land between spain and the far east, so he sold Isabella
and Ferdinand a bill of goods to fund his venture, so he could
discover the "new world", or
(3) C. knew the size of the earth, and wanted to commit a grand sort
of suicide.
I lean to #2.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Judson McClendon
Saulius Muliolis wrote:
>
> In message <3217BC...@ix.netcom.com> - Judson McClendon
> <juds...@ix.netcom.com>Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:00:33 -0500 writes:
> >>
> >A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
> >were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
> >was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." I think Peleg was
> >about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of
> >Babel. Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over
> >the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents? It would
> >seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those
> >continents in the first place.
>
> Ho hum. Again, we have a creationist proposing an incredibly fast
> rate of tectonic motion. He is claiming that continents moved
> thousands of miles in just a few years, when real science tells
> us it took hundreds of millions of years for them to get to where
> they are.
>
> plates today, and see the effect. A movement of only inches every
> year is enough to cause earthquakes all the way up the richter
> and break up previously solid rock. Imagine the effect of quakes
> Judson's hypothesis. Mountains would crumble into rubble. The
> energy released would probably melt the entire crust.
There are times in the Bible when God suspended or reversed either time
or the rotation of the earth.
"Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone
down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward." So
the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.
(Isaiah 38:8)
Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered
up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the
sight of Israel: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the
Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had
revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of
Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not
hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Joshua 10:12,13)
Now, if God could do this, what problem would He have moving a few
continents around? ;)
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems
Email: juds...@ix.netcom.com
Achim Recktenwald
Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
> >accept anything but science as valid.
Science is testable, (religious) faith not.
The scientific method is based on observations; from these observations
conclusions are drawn, and preditions made for distinct conditions of
new experiments. By doing these new experiments, it can be tested, if
the original conclusions were correct.
Achim
Sean Webb
On 8/19/96 4:44PM, in message <32187D...@nat.is.net>, "Stewart T.
Ewing" <tmc...@nat.is.net> wrote:
> Jerry Teach wrote regarding Creation VS Evolution:
> >
> > ... Actually it's the place for me to bow out :] I'm definatly not an
> > authority on creation science...actually my science knowledge in general
> > is very scare. I've read the arguments on both sides and done a little
> > research on my own to decipher the arguments going on in here. My faith
> > is based mainly on personal experiences which really aren't accepted
> > material for an argument of this type. I'm sure there are some very
> > intelectual and knowledgable creationists in here that would love to
> > take up the conversation. I'd just hate to make an idiot of myself
> > jumping into an argument in which I have no valid contribution to make.
> > If you'd like to hear some of my personel experiences, let me know. I'd
> > love to hear what you think caused them, just out of curiousity. Sorry
> > if I let ya down. I just prefer to be honest from the start. I've seen
> > people on both sides of the coin jump in over their heads and try to
> > compensate by typing in other peoples articles or making illogical
> > arguments and then when both sides get frustrated the personal attacks
> > start up :] I never have been too much into science. I'm a musician..
> > can't stand numbers but I sure love notes :]
> >
> >
> > > rocks, and for evolution as a means of generating biological diversity
> > > through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
> > > creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
> > > who knows.
> > >
> >
> > God Bless (I ask God to bless everyone, take no offense)
> >
> > Jerry Teach
>
> On the Contrary Jerry! In my opinion, personal testimony is every bit
> of a match for scientific fact. Look at it this way. Science is
> limited in its method due to its inability to explain, measure, or
> express the supernatural or anything else the finite human mind is
> unable to understand. For man to assume that everything must be
> explainable or measurable is even more of a stretch than believing in a
> supernatural God.
>
> Stewart Ewing
So what you are saying is that my friend the invisible to everyone else (except me)
green dragon is not a figment of my imagination !!
My personal testimonial is as valid as science !!
Yuppeeee !!
I'll tell that to the evaluation board tommorrow , perhaps in view of this they'll let me
out of summer views mental rest home.
Thank you , thank you , thank you , you have made my day.
Got to go , my friend the invisible dwarf wants to play now.
Sean Webb
Honest the tongue in my cheek is my own !!
Patrick Juola
In article <32191D18...@southeast.net> "R. J. Register" <regi...@southeast.net> writes:
>Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:
>Science was once defined as a process for determining truth. This
>process involved 5 steps:
>1) gather observations
>2) formulate a theory to explain the observations
>3) make predictions based on the theory
>4) develop a test to determine if the perdictions where accurate
> this test would involve a expermimental group and a control group
>5) evaulate the theory based on the new observations from the test
>
>repeat as needed until the theory (and its predictions) fit all the
>known facts.
>
>
We observe things now. For example, we observe rocks that appear to
have the shape of bone. We observe rocks that appear to have the
*structure* of bone, when examined microscopically. &c.
>How can we with intellectual honesty formulate a theory based on so few
>observable facts?
Um, cleverly? With great care? One can with intellectual honesty
formulate a theory based on a single fact.
>How do we provide a control and test group?
This isn't and has never been part of the definition of science. It's
just a convenient heuristic because it makes observations much
easier to gather.
>How do we live long enough to evaulate our theory based on perdictions
>which require "geologic ages" to transpire?
The predictions which require geological ages are generally examined
closely for more testable consequences. Sometimes the evaluations are
placed on hold. Sometimes new evidence comes along (e.g. continental
drift). Science is a process, not an end point.
>I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
>scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
See above.
George Acton
You can't read the Purgatorio section of The Divine Comedy
unless you know that it's a conical mountain centered exactly
opposite to Jeruselum on the surface of a spherical Earth.
Dante mentions this arrangement repeatedly as a device for
orienting the reader to the structure of the narrative.
AFAIA, no one at the time objected to either his sciene or
theology.
--George Acton
Aaron Bergman
Apologies for not trimming, but this is off-topic for almost all
groups and I have no idea where the poster was posting from.
Follow-ups are set to talk.atheism, where I am posting from. Add
in whatever group you're posting from and we'll have atleast a
slight reduction in crossposting.
Christopher C. Wood (chr...@lexis-nexis.com) wrote:
: (1) Columbus knew nothing about the Americas, and was drastically
: wrong about the distance across Asia, the western ocean, and the size
: of the earth, (any one of which would have been a fatal mistake;
: C. and crew consumed more than half there food, before they sighted
: land) or
By almost a factor of 2, in fact. He got very very lucky when he
ran into the Carribean because they would probably have died
fairly soon after.
:
: (2) C. knew the size of the earth (hey -- some greek in Egypt got it
: pretty darn close nearly 2,000 years before C. set sail), and knew
: that there was land between spain and the far east, so he sold Isabella
: and Ferdinand a bill of goods to fund his venture, so he could
: discover the "new world", or
Nope.
:
: (3) C. knew the size of the earth, and wanted to commit a grand sort
: of suicide.
I doubt it.
:
: I lean to #2.
2 is wrong. How could Columbus have known there was land across
the Atlantic?
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The quote left intentionally blank.
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>|> >|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
>|> >|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
>|> >|> be living a bit closer to you :]
>|> > The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>|> > This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
>|> that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
>|> of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
>|> sail there and back.
>Aristotle, in his "On the Heavens" offers some good arguments as
>to why the earth is spherical, and gives an estimate of the
>circumference of the earth of 400,000 stadia, or somewhere around
>twice the modern value.
no map, no evidence, no sailing. are you stupid or something?
> "Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
how? no map, no evidence, no sailing.
oh, i know, your book says they flew across the oceans back then.
> Russell says that he found very few writers in Europe in classical
>times or thereafter who said that the earth is flat
how many did he find that said it was round?
no map. no evidence, no sailing.
> An interesting point: "A pictorial demonstration of the round earth
>in the early Middle Ages is in the portraits of kings holding the
>symbols of their power. One standard item of regalia is the royal
>'orb', which the king holds in his hand. It is a golden ball
>representing the earth, surmounted by a cross indicating Christ's
>sovereignty over the earth ..." [page 21].
sounds like a mace to me.
no map. no evidence, no sailing.
> Russell suggests that the idea that Columbus proved the earth
>is round gained its popularity in Washington Irving's "The Life and
>Voyages of Christopher Columbus". This story by Irving does have the
>tall tale about Columbus and his contemporaries -- that many of the
>scholars argued against Columbus's belief that the earth being
>round -- but even Irving has to admit that some knew that the earth
>was round
of course irving knew. he was born after columbus.
no map. no evidence, no sailing.
Bill Smith
In <4vbjgr$i...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
>
>>|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time
that
>>|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the
earth, I'd
>>|> be living a bit closer to you :]
>> The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>> This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
>
>that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
>of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
>sail there and back.
>
Please take a reading comprehension course. The writer did not say
that anyone had attempted a circumnavigation before Columbus. He said
what was true: That the scholars at the University of Salamanca
rejected Columbus' proposal because they didn't think it was feasible,
not because they or any other educated person living in Europe during
the Renaissance thought the Earth flat. All educated opinion of the
day held that the Earth was a sphere. Further, following Ptolemy, who
had made his calculations some 2,000 years earlier, Renaissance
scholars believed the circumference of the Earth to be about 25,000
miles, in other words within one or two per cent. of the actual number.
Sean Webb
On 8/19/96 12:45PM, in message <321845...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry
Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> An accident with amazing precision... I'm no expert and correct me if
> I'm wrong but I've heard it said that if the earth would moved off it's
> axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
> and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet. I've also
> heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the prerequisites of a
> life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
> debris forming a dictionary. Sorry to be so unscientific but I'll get to
> my explanation for that a bit farther down in this reply.
>
[snip]
>
1/4 inch biblical maybe , but +/- 1 million miles in reality (scientific)
If it was 1/4 of an inch then i would be inclined to agree with the creationists , and
the great prophets cagle & ted (NOT !!!)
Sean Webb
Marc Perkel
Tired of being screwed over by the justice system? Lose everything in
divorce court because you have a job? Done time for smoking a joint?
Lose you car from being with a hooker?
Now you can do something about it. I have a plan to overhaul the
justice system that is workable and acheivable. Come visit my web
site and read the whole plan.
--
Marc Perkel Voice: 417-866-1222
Computer Tyme Software Lab Fax/BBS: 417-866-1665
411 North Sherman, Suite 300 Reply: "mailto:ma...@ctyme.com"
Springfield, MO. 65802 USA Web Site: "http://www.ctyme.com"
Dennis Jensen
In article <4vd8ov$k...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
actually Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the earth. If you
are interested in how he did this, I will let you know.
Dennis
Doug Groseclose
In article <DwGoA...@midway.uchicago.edu>, me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
says...
>
> The fact that the Earth is round can be proved
>experimentally without the need to sail around the world. Moreover,
>same measurements will also give you the Earth radius. The Greeks
>already did it, there is no need for supersophisticated equipment.
>
Mati, you really shouldn't confuse people with facts all the time :-)
Carmen Toledo
In <4v8ime$k...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
>
>> Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if
it
>>claims to be the truth. As a physicist and theologian, I would
>>disagree with you that respectability is not important. ;-)
>theologians can't be physicists. it's a law or something.
>
>
You mean that it's against the law?
Joachim Verhagen
chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>In article <4vcj3n$2...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle) writes:
>Another greek estimate (having something to do with a Well in
>Alexandria, and its shadow) worked out to 25,000 miles, which is quite
>good.
>|> Columbus _was_ wrong about the size of the earth -- it is much
>|> larger than he said. Just think about whether Columbus would have
>|> attempted to reach the Indies had he known the size of the Atlantic
>|> _and_ Pacific Oceans lying ahead of him.)
>I can think of three possibilities:
>(1) Columbus knew nothing about the Americas, and was drastically
>wrong about the distance across Asia, the western ocean, and the size
>of the earth, (any one of which would have been a fatal mistake;
>C. and crew consumed more than half there food, before they sighted
>land) or
>(2) C. knew the size of the earth (hey -- some greek in Egypt got it
>pretty darn close nearly 2,000 years before C. set sail), and knew
>that there was land between spain and the far east, so he sold Isabella
>and Ferdinand a bill of goods to fund his venture, so he could
>discover the "new world", or
>(3) C. knew the size of the earth, and wanted to commit a grand sort
>of suicide.
>I lean to #2.
The right answer is 1). Columbus believed an alternative calculation, with
a much smaller Earth and a bigger Asia, based on some travelogues (I
believe Marco Polo, but I could be wrong). So, the ocean would be much
smaller. His problems to get support came from the fact that most scientists
believed in the right size.
Joachim
--
Joachim Verhagen Email:J.C.D.V...@fys.ruu.nl
Department of molecular biofysics, University of Utrecht
Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Homepage: http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~verhagen (Science Jokes & SF)
Achim Recktenwald
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> Is there any reason why this should be posted to 21 groups?
>
> No. That's why I'm trimming the groups drastically. I'm e-mailing
> this to Jerry, so he will find it, and he has the opportunity of retracting
> it in public.
>
> In article <321845...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> [...]
> |> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
> |> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
> |> be living a bit closer to you :]
>
> Not again????!!!!!
>
> The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>
> This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
>
> among us :-o) knew that the earth was round (like a ball or a globe or
> a sphere) at the time of Columbus. If they "laughed at Columbus"
> it wasn't because he said the world was round, it was because he
> was *wrong* in thinking it was so small.
Columbus used for his calculations numbers of the Earth's size that
where about two-thirds too small. These numbers were believed to be
true only by a very small minority of 'experts', the majority assumed
the circumfence to be ~35000km, quite close to the actual number.
According to what I have read, Columbus used the smaller number to make
the whole undertaking look much cheaper and easier to accomplish.
Then as now, it has always been difficult to get funding for 'Big
Science'.
Achim
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <4vef5f$d...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
>
>>>> "Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
>
>>incoherent responses. The fact that the Earth is round can be proved
>a>the religionists would prosecute you if you started with the theory
>of a heliocentric universe
>b>climbing a mountain could mean the earth is a flat disc
>
Open an encyclopedia and look up Erastothenes.
Jason E. Steele
Sorry for quoting a quote, but my newserver had already cycled the
original.
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> In article <4vd5qs$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
> |> >|> >|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
> |> >|> >|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
> |> >|> >|> be living a bit closer to you :]
> |> >|> > The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
> |> >|> > This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
> |>
> |> >|> that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
> |> >|> of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
> |> >|> sail there and back.
> |>
> |> >Aristotle, in his "On the Heavens" offers some good arguments as
> |> >to why the earth is spherical, and gives an estimate of the
> |> >circumference of the earth of 400,000 stadia, or somewhere around
> |> >twice the modern value.
> |> no map, no evidence, no sailing. are you stupid or something?
> ^^^^^^
> Ah, yes, the arrogance of ignorance.
>
> |>
> |>
> |> > "Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
> |> how? no map, no evidence, no sailing.
> |> oh, i know, your book says they flew across the oceans back then.
> [...rest deleted...]
The reason nobody(?) crossed the ocean before Columbus did was because
of lack of navigation and ship-design technology. Sailing in the 1400's
was bloody dangerous, and you didn't just go flitting off into the open
ocean without charts and a way to tell where you were.
It wasn't until around the end of the 1400's that accurate instruments
and better designed ships started to show up (first with the Portuguese)
that could make an open ocean voyage into uncharted waters into a
"manageable" risk.
--
Jason E. Steele (jest...@ocean.st.usm.edu)
University of Southern Missippi
Aaron Boyden
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Dennis Jensen wrote:
> It was certainly not Ptolemy, who believed the earth to be flat. It was
> actually Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the earth. If you
> are interested in how he did this, I will let you know.
Ptolemy certainly did not believe the earth to be flat. The silly belief
commonly attributed to him is that the earth is the center of the
universe, though Duhem suggests that even that may be less than
completely fair.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
Andrew J. Doherty
validity of science and religion. I *do not* mean that religion and
science are interchangeable - but that for an enourmous number of people
out there, a religious world view allows them to make sense of the world
around them. THis does not mean that they are right, or indeed that they
are wrong. REligion, and to a large extent art, allow people to
interpret the world - in particular the ineractions between people. We
have been doing this for thousands of years. And there are more
religions out there than just christian ones - but they all have the
same role to play in society.
Now, I don't believe in any religion; I don't believe in any gods - but
the scientific view of the world has it's own problems. We still have to
make assumptions about the world, and we all have our pet theories,
which we BELIEVE to be true, without real supportive evidence. The only
time that science and religion diverge from each other is when evidence
to the contrary to our *belief* is presented. Then, if we are following
the scientific method properly, we change our minds; religion does not
tend to do that. And that is the fundamental difference.
Religion is a valid way for people to run their lives. What I don't like
is people saying that only the scientific, rational approach to life is
the right one. We are imaginative and spiritual beings (for the most
part). Religion is the way many people fulfill that part of themselves -
and there's nothing wrong with that.
I hope I make myself clear now
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>>> Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if
>it
>>>claims to be the truth. As a physicist and theologian, I would
>>>disagree with you that respectability is not important. ;-)
>>theologians can't be physicists. it's a law or something.
> You mean that it's against the law?
it 's a vested interest argument. what is meant is that physicists
shouldn't be theologians. it's unethical.
Gvwm...@netcom.com
>>> "Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
>>how? no map, no evidence, no sailing.
>You know, you should really do some reading instead of mumbling
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <321B5F2D...@ocean.st.usm.edu>, "Jason E. Steele" <jest...@ocean.st.usm.edu> writes:
... snip ...
>
>The reason nobody(?) crossed the ocean before Columbus did was because
>of lack of navigation and ship-design technology. Sailing in the 1400's
>was bloody dangerous, and you didn't just go flitting off into the open
>ocean without charts and a way to tell where you were.
>
>It wasn't until around the end of the 1400's that accurate instruments
>and better designed ships started to show up (first with the Portuguese)
>that could make an open ocean voyage into uncharted waters into a
>"manageable" risk.
Yep. and even this 'manageable" risk was still very high. It is
worth mentioning that Magellan, for example, started his journey with
5 ships and upwards of 250 people. Only one ship with 16 people came
back. Magellan wasn't among these 16.
sys...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
>>|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
>>|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
>>|> be living a bit closer to you :]
>> The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>> This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
>that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
>of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
>sail there and back.
Well the Norsemen might have some dispute with this, but then they
were pretty insane (and first class sailors)
Think about this Gvw, for most of that time nobody (aside from the Vikings)
really wanted to be out of sight from land for very long. Let me give you
a choice, you can start hiking across this massive desert where
there is no water and little food. Or you can slowly work your way around
it exploring areas that have plenty of food and water.
Well MAYBE there is an oasis out there that I will reach before I run
out of water... then again maybe not.
Read Thor Heyerdahl's (sp?!) books about the Kon Tiki, Ra and Ra II.
then you will have some idea of why if somebody made it they never
came back. ("You want me to do that AGAIN? HA!")
It took months to cross the Atlantic, and the explorers of the time had
a pretty good idea that that might just be the case and they were not
going to hang their heinie out betting that they could make it. Not
when the Mediteranian(sp) for the Greeks and Africa for the Europeans were
sitting there waiting to be sailed around.
And then we come to cost.
As I understand it the Queen viewed Columbus the same as a high risk
venture capitalist views hir investments, yah win some, yah lose some.
He was outfitted with less than primo ships because the odds of somebody
making it across both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean are , shall we say
very long? But hey, maybe he'll get lucky.
And please note that this is a country taking the risk (ok so Spain
wasn't one of the richest but still) That is basically what is
needed to absorb this kind of risk and there is only a limited
number of countries and they only have a limited amount of venture
capital to invest.
In short, it is perfectly reasonable that nobody would have gone exploring
before Columbus.
Robert
Real Men change diapers
Jim Akerlund
Saulius Muliolis wrote:
>
> In message <3217BC...@ix.netcom.com> - Judson McClendon
> <juds...@ix.netcom.com>Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:00:33 -0500 writes:
> >>
> >A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
> >were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
> >was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." I think Peleg was
> >about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of
> >Babel. Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over
> >the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents? It would
> >seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those
> >continents in the first place.
>
> Ho hum. Again, we have a creationist proposing an incredibly fast
> rate of tectonic motion. He is claiming that continents moved
> thousands of miles in just a few years, when real science tells
> us it took hundreds of millions of years for them to get to where
> they are.
> "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A.
> Heinlein.
>
> The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
>
> Saulius Muliolis muli...@en.com
> http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html
I think he is talking about the land bridge flooding between Alaska and Siberia, which I
think happened less then 15000 years ago. He is not refering to Continential drift. I
do not say this in defense of creationists, I just believe that parts of the Bible are
the written history of what was passed down from generation to generation for thousands
of years, and that history may or may not include some big changes on earth.
Jim Akerlund
t
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>how? no map, no evidence, no sailing.
>
incoherent responses. The fact that the Earth is round can be proved
same measurements will also give you the Earth radius. The Greeks
already did it, there is no need for supersophisticated equipment.
>> Russell says that he found very few writers in Europe in classical
>>times or thereafter who said that the earth is flat
>how many did he find that said it was round?
>no map. no evidence, no sailing.
>
See above.
>no map. no evidence, no sailing.
>
OK, OK, you made your point and proved a total lack of understanding.
Now, how about a trip to the library to do some reading.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <4vg8ee$f5c...@mel.dit.csiro.au>, d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au
(Dennis Jensen) wrote:
+However, it was Eratosthenes who first made a reasonable
+calculation of the circumference of the earth.
Well, no. There were several quite reasonable, if less accurate,
calculations before Eratosthenes. Aristotle mentions one decent
ballpark estimate, for example.
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."
Thomas Scharle
In article <4vd5qs$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
|> >|> >|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
|> >|> >|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
|> >|> >|> be living a bit closer to you :]
|> >|> > The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
|> >|> > This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
|>
|> >|> that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
|> >|> of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
|> >|> sail there and back.
|>
|> >Aristotle, in his "On the Heavens" offers some good arguments as
|> >to why the earth is spherical, and gives an estimate of the
|> >circumference of the earth of 400,000 stadia, or somewhere around
|> >twice the modern value.
|> no map, no evidence, no sailing. are you stupid or something?
^^^^^^
Ah, yes, the arrogance of ignorance.
|>
|>
|> > "Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
|> how? no map, no evidence, no sailing.
|> oh, i know, your book says they flew across the oceans back then.
[...rest deleted...]
This, if it is not a troll, and I fear it is not, is evidence of
supreme ignorance of science.
It's the old "creationist"/"fundamentalist"/"inerrantist" idea
that the only way that you can *know* something is if you can *see*
it. I wonder what evidence Gvwmoore has for the earth being round.
This does serve as a good example of the problems with faulty
education in the US. If people can swallow "creationism", I guess
they can swallow anything.
--
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
"In this house, we obey the laws
of thermodynamics" Homer Simpson
David Jensen
sci.* removed.
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 16:29:48 -0500, Judson McClendon
<juds...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>There are times in the Bible when God suspended or reversed either time
>or the rotation of the earth.
>
> "Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone
> down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward." So
> the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.
> (Isaiah 38:8)
>
> Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered
> up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the
> sight of Israel: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the
> Valley of Aijalon."
> So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had
> revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of
> Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not
> hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Joshua 10:12,13)
>
>Now, if God could do this, what problem would He have moving a few
>continents around? ;)
The major literate societies of the time were all entranced by the sun, the
moon and the stars. Had either of these actually happened, we would have
had them written down by the astropriests of all of those societies. We
have read much of these astrohistorieswithout one word from any of them.
Why?
Maybe it didn't happen. What is your theory?
>Judson McClendon
>Sun Valley Systems
>Email: juds...@ix.netcom.com
---
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Will Howard
> In article <4vbjgr$i...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwm...@netcom.com writes:
> |> >|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
> |> >|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the
earth, I'd
> |> >|> be living a bit closer to you :]
> |> > The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
> |> > This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
> |>
> |> that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
> |> of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
> |> sail there and back.
The issue for Columbus' time was not so much whether the earth was round;
this was mostly accepted. There were even reasonable estimates of the
earth's circumference. Remember the Eratosthenes story, of measuring the
zenith angle at local apparent noon at one spot in Egypt, north of and a
measured distance from another site where on a certain date the sun was
directly overhead?
The problem was that geographers, including Columbus, could not accurately
estimate the distance from Europe to Asia (in either direction) because
they didn't have good ways of estimating _longitude_. Columbus in fact
vastly underestimated the distance westward to the Indies. It would take
another three centuries for accurate clocks to be developed to solve the
longitude problem.
*********************************************************************
Will Howard Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-80
Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
Antarctic CRC Homepage: http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/antcrc.html
E-mail: Will....@antcrc.utas.edu.au
Phones:
61 3 62207888 (sec'y) 61 2 62207859 (office) 61 3 62202973 (fax)
*********************************************************************