Page 121 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2171111120121122 ... LastLast
Results 4,201 to 4,235 of 4307

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #4201
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    U.K
    Posts
    665

  2. #4202
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,802

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Plate Tectonics / Runaway Subduction

    - what do you think those slabs are - if not crust, hanging down and folded up on the bottom?

    You asked for real, physical evidence in the real world - something that would allow me to accept the millions and billions of y.o. earth.

    - and an important point!! ​ - I am just as interested as you, believe it or not! - maybe more interested - because (as i think you have come to accept, my beliefs stem from my science - not the other way round) so that my trust in and respect for the apparent contents of the scriptures would be rocked.

    thin cold rock sitting in hot rock - yet not yet melted?

    not rock(et) (pardon .....) science, hey?

    i think you are avoiding this because you are absolutely not open.


    passage in Job

    well! - you tell us you are married to someone who surely much more able to answer that than i. i just remember reading it or something , a long time ago now. just ask your wife - its in her job to know how to find the answer to these sorts of things, no ?

    best regards,

    frank
    There is science there is not my science. There is my fantasy or my belief or my delusion. Science is objective not subjective. You can't say according to my science the Earth is flat because science has proved the Earth is round. Also I think you will find that your view of science stems from your belief.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  3. #4203
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Okay.

    So why don’t the Chinese people believe they came from a migration afterr he Tower Of Babel? Why don’t the Americans believe they were lost tribes of Israel or scattered Babel denizens?

    Those Australians? They also believe they are relocated from Babel?

    Certainly the Inuit and Pacific Islanders are descendants of Babel Tower dwellers, eh?

    There is no logical way for these disparate peoples to be accounted for in the whole earth flood story. Nor the young earth story.

    Peace,
    Robert
    Hi Robert,

    i think you are asking a couple of things here ....

    (and i feel a bit awkward because the ancient memories of ancient peoples are one of you specialties, no?)

    My understanding is that echos of The Flood story is one of the most pervasive stories in the origin myths of peoples and cultures all over the planet - from New Guinea Highlanders (IIRC they describe their ancestor couple surviving a big flood by sitting in a nest at the top of the tallest tree around.......) and Australian Aborigines (pardon - i am too old to be PC - but i intend no disrespect anyway) - not all of them, but several from different areas have the flood story.

    {Actually, Purri - i gather you might be able to throw some light on this?}



    So i dont understand why you would state that: "There is no logical way for these disparate peoples to be accounted for in the whole earth flood story."



    Ah! - it has also just occurred to me...

    Apparently there is a minority ethnic group isolated in Japan some where that had artifacts or customs or something that were unique to somewhere in northern Europe.

    (forgive my vagueness of detail - but it was embedded in a paper or article about the "Hot ocean Ice Age theory".
    the suggestion was that, with a warm, ice-free Arctic ocean, the NW passage could would be open between Europe and Japan).

    Now this thought has stuck in my mind for its reverberations with our activities .....
    Ever wondered (as i have..) 'Why do some of us have this compelling urge to go to the horizon - and look over the edge?' I know i have it, and sometimes i wonder what is eating me ..... other people seem "normal".

    And i have also reflected just how capable small simple craft can be.
    Our club's 14' tradl. Clinker dinghy, built in the old way, that i campaigned for 10yrs beach cruising - well i realized that , in the days before the infernal combustion engine, i could have got a couple of pigs to the market in Melbourne from anywhere in the Bay - or beyond - in only a day or two. Even easier than by land. i reckon these small boats would have been like the ubiquitous Aussie Ute of those times.

    Coastal spreading of people by small boats would have been a doddle - but Eskimos have crossed the Atlantic (and Frank Dye!). The Pacific Islanders owned that ocean

    - woz da prob???

    yes, peace,

    frank

  4. #4204
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    excuse me - but i have no idea as to the point you are trying to make (or was this a typo - cos the above is all that appeared.....)

  5. #4205
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    There is science there is not my science. There is my fantasy or my belief or my delusion. Science is objective not subjective. You can't say according to my science the Earth is flat because science has proved the Earth is round. Also I think you will find that your view of science stems from your belief.
    well, yes, i think you are agreeing with me .... i am making the point that it is the real world evidence that interests me .....

    - like those descending slabs of rock - or the Great Artesian Basin

    anybody can make up any theory - but what fits best with what we observe is the decider....

  6. #4206
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    U.K
    Posts
    665

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Click the link.
    It refers to the discovery of the oldest coloured molecules (from living organisms)
    They happen to be 1.1 billion years old. Not sure how they fit in with your ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    excuse me - but i have no idea as to the point you are trying to make (or was this a typo - cos the above is all that appeared.....)

  7. #4207
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    . . . not all of them, but several from different areas have the flood story.
    Big floods are common. Expanding significant local events into myth is also very common. People love good stories.

    And once again, Frank, a challenge: Give us an example of a scientific truth, even a fairly simple one, generally accepted and well-supported by objective evidence, that was correctly described in the Bible before it was discovered in the physical world by scientists. A couple of examples: a passage in Genesis that says 'the sun is a star', or 'light is the fastest thing there is'. Something, anything, in the Bible about the physical world that's true, but that was discovered by science only recently. And please give a reference so those who aren't biblical scholars can look it up. You'd think if the Christian bible were a reliable guide to biology and geology, there'd be a lot of this, right?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  8. #4208
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,706

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Plate Tectonics / Runaway Subduction

    - what do you think those slabs are - if not crust, hanging down and folded up on the bottom?

    You asked for real, physical evidence in the real world - something that would allow me to accept the millions and billions of y.o. earth.

    - and an important point!! ​ - I am just as interested as you, believe it or not! - maybe more interested - because (as i think you have come to accept, my beliefs stem from my science - not the other way round) so that my trust in and respect for the apparent contents of the scriptures would be rocked.

    thin cold rock sitting in hot rock - yet not yet melted?

    not rock(et) (pardon .....) science, hey?

    i think you are avoiding this because you are absolutely not open.

    best regards,

    frank
    Pressure?
    Seismic waves are altered as they move through the hot and cooler regions, which allowed computer programs to generate the picture of the slab. It is possible, Garnero told LiveScience, that they are just seeing a formation of rock from the mantle that has different chemical components, but the temperature difference is best explained by crustal material that has been compressed, he said.
    and as it is solid it will take a long time for heat to pass through a good insulator. There that was not difficult now was it Frank.
    Do not forget that the core as hot as it is, is solid crystals, due to pressure. https://phys.org/news/2017-02-theory...d-extreme.html
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  9. #4209
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by artif View Post
    Click the link.
    It refers to the discovery of the oldest coloured molecules (from living organisms)
    They happen to be 1.1 billion years old. Not sure how they fit in with your ideas.
    Dear Artif,

    Ah. - ok - yeh a few odd references have been posted - but if its about the dating....

    We have established (or at least nobody here has come up with anything else...) - that the only way to attempt to find out how old a thing is if it is in the millions / billions yrs. range is the Radiometric suite of methods.

    so any age in that range is solely dependent upon the accuracy and reliability of Radiometric Dating.

    problem is, a growing number of problems and anomalies are emerging regarding RM dating.

    Also, even in this application, it is NOT a straight forward process of counting halflives.

    I am doing some homework on a link i have been given

    You might like to satisfy yourself about what is going on ?

    {btw - of course i read the link - thats y i was puzzled....}

    cheers,

    frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 07-10-2018 at 07:58 AM.

  10. #4210
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Problem is, a growing number of problems and anomalies are emerging regarding RM dating.
    Problem is, young-earth creationism absolutely requires that you completely throw out all radiometric dating. The problem is that you can't, at least not rationally. There are a large number of different methods that all more or less agree. The 'problems and anomalies' Frank depends on occur under specific narrow circumstances, and are quite well understood. They most certainly do not cast doubt on the whole idea of using radioactive decay to date things. In fact, the reliability of dating using these methods has only gotten better over the years. Frank will never admit it, of course, since it makes a 6000-year-old biblical literalst's earth impossible.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 07-10-2018 at 08:35 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  11. #4211
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,706

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Probable is, young-earth creationism absolutely requires that you completely throw out all radiometric dating. The problem is that you can't, at least not rationally. There are a large number of different methods that all more or less agree. The 'problems and anomalies' Frank depends on occur under specific narrow circumstances, and are quite well understood. They most certainly do not cast doubt on the whole idea of using radioactive decay to date things. In fact, the reliability of dating using these methods has only gotten better over the years. Frank will never admit it, of course, since it makes a 6000-year-old biblical literalst's earth impossible.
    I live in hope.
    Frank is ploughing through this: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.
    As it is written by an expert who is also an avowed Christian it is possible that Frank may crack his mind open and take note.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  12. #4212
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Excellent! That's quite a good paper. I doubt it will penetrate, but one can hope.

    The unfortunate thing is that young-earth silliness, denying the clear evidence of the physical world because of biblical literalism, is quite damaging to the reputation of Christianity, and religion in general. All too often I find myself in the odd position (for an agnostic) of defending religion against those who think that Frank's ideas are typical. I'm a bit surprised TomF or Nanoose can restrain themselves.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 07-10-2018 at 08:53 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  13. #4213
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    13,250

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Hi Robert,

    i think you are asking a couple of things here ....

    (and i feel a bit awkward because the ancient memories of ancient peoples are one of you specialties, no?)

    My understanding is that echos of The Flood story is one of the most pervasive stories in the origin myths of peoples and cultures all over the planet - from New Guinea Highlanders (IIRC they describe their ancestor couple surviving a big flood by sitting in a nest at the top of the tallest tree around.......) and Australian Aborigines (pardon - i am too old to be PC - but i intend no disrespect anyway) - not all of them, but several from different areas have the flood story.

    {Actually, Purri - i gather you might be able to throw some light on this?}



    So i dont understand why you would state that: "There is no logical way for these disparate peoples to be accounted for in the whole earth flood story."



    Ah! - it has also just occurred to me...

    Apparently there is a minority ethnic group isolated in Japan some where that had artifacts or customs or something that were unique to somewhere in northern Europe.

    (forgive my vagueness of detail - but it was embedded in a paper or article about the "Hot ocean Ice Age theory".
    the suggestion was that, with a warm, ice-free Arctic ocean, the NW passage could would be open between Europe and Japan).

    Now this thought has stuck in my mind for its reverberations with our activities .....
    Ever wondered (as i have..) 'Why do some of us have this compelling urge to go to the horizon - and look over the edge?' I know i have it, and sometimes i wonder what is eating me ..... other people seem "normal".

    And i have also reflected just how capable small simple craft can be.
    Our club's 14' tradl. Clinker dinghy, built in the old way, that i campaigned for 10yrs beach cruising - well i realized that , in the days before the infernal combustion engine, i could have got a couple of pigs to the market in Melbourne from anywhere in the Bay - or beyond - in only a day or two. Even easier than by land. i reckon these small boats would have been like the ubiquitous Aussie Ute of those times.

    Coastal spreading of people by small boats would have been a doddle - but Eskimos have crossed the Atlantic (and Frank Dye!). The Pacific Islanders owned that ocean

    - woz da prob???

    yes, peace,

    frank
    Okay. If civilizations in other parts of the world who don’t subscribe to the flood story don’t explain it, I’ll try another tack. First, though, explain why the Japanese, who apparently share some ancient artifacts with Europe, don’t tell the flood story?

    And, no, a “version” isn’t the same. If the story of Noah is true, people around the world should know it. Why don’t peoples the world over celebrate their descent from Noah?

    Aside from that, though, what about Jericho? 6-7000 years of habitation, and located a couple hundred feet BELOW sea level, but no evidence of it ever being flooded. Yes, despite being below current sea levels, Jericho, for the history we have literally unearthed, was never flooded...


    The “prob” with your coastal spreading theory is we KNOW that happened. We also know how long it took, but we have to depend on oral traditions and writings that aren’t in the Bible, so I’m not sure you’ll ever be able to see that.

    Peace,
    Robert

    P.S. Yes, I study old cultures, especially those from the Middle East. That’s how I know nobody else has a flood story except those of Babylonian/Assyrian descent.

  14. #4214
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    33,843

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    ... All too often I find myself in the odd position (for an agnostic) of defending religion against those who think that Frank's ideas are typical. I'm a bit surprised TomF or Nanoose can restrain themselves.
    Me? By now I've given up; the pig wrestling metaphor comes to mind. I think that "form criticism," for instance, has a whole lot to be said for it.I heard a YouTube chat by a young Jesuit recently who made that case very coherently. He opined that what's written in Scripture is certainly "True," but all of the texts aren't "true" in the same way. A Chemistry text is "true," so is a love letter, so is King Lear, so is a telephone directory, and so is a transcription of a court proceeding. I dunno about you guys, but I'd still be single if I'd shyly slipped Herself a recent phone directory, authoritative Hebrew vocab text, or even a learned genealogy of lesser 17th Century Swedish aristocrats after our first couple of dates. Those things might be impeccably "true," but (happily) a love letter was a lot more effective. At the same time, I wouldn't expect an authentic reproduction of that 30 year old love letter would be enough info for the guy at the auto parts store to find the right wheel bearings for my son's Ford Ranger. Biblical literalists pretend that all of the various types of literature collected into the Bible are the same form of writing, and are all "true" in one specific sense of the word. That's crap. Not only is it crap, but it actively prevents one from actually finding something useful in the writings. I can't get that across to literalists though, and I've mostly stopped trying. The folks I will chat with about such things are the agnostics/atheists who dismiss the faith because they've come to think that it requires a literalist's approach to the bible.
    Last edited by TomF; 07-10-2018 at 11:56 AM.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  15. #4215
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I dunno about you guys, but I'd still be single if I'd shyly slipped Herself a recent phone directory, authoritative Hebrew vocab text, or even a learned genealogy of lesser 17th Century Swedish aristocrats after our first couple of dates.
    Awww, what could possibly be more romantic than a learned genealogy of lesser 17th Century Swedish aristocrats??

    Not only is it crap, but it actively prevents one from actually finding something useful in the writings. I can't get that across to literalists, though . . .
    Exactly. I actually think there's a fair amount of useful stuff in the Christian bible - but never geology. To learn about the world, you have to look at the world itself, or listen to people who have.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  16. #4216
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,532

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Just came to check in...have you guys convinced Frank yet?.... No.... carry on.
    PaulF

  17. #4217
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    33,843

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    She just said that the phone book might have worked, so what do I know?
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  18. #4218
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    13,250

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    She just said that the phone book might have worked, so what do I know?
    Dang. I painted my wifeís name on the side of a building in letters 10 feet high after our second date.

    You mean I coulda just given her ONE letter?

    Peace,

  19. #4219
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Dang. I painted my wife’s name on the side of a building in letters 10 feet high after our second date.
    And you knew things were going well when she posted your bail?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  20. #4220
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    33,843

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    When she got him a box of rattle cans in her preferred colours...
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  21. #4221
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    9,182

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Dang. I painted my wife’s name on the side of a building in letters 10 feet high after our second date.

    You mean I coulda just given her ONE letter?

    Peace,
    Dude! I've done that! I used sidewalk chalk on the street though.
    Nosce te ipsum

  22. #4222
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    22,421

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Okay, I sat down again to read the Holy Bible from the first verse.
    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
    Oops, a big fat lie in the first sentence...why proceed in search of truth?
    Close the book!

  23. #4223
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,802

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    well, yes, i think you are agreeing with me .... i am making the point that it is the real world evidence that interests me .....

    - like those descending slabs of rock - or the Great Artesian Basin

    anybody can make up any theory - but what fits best with what we observe is the decider....
    Correct and your theories don’t fit the evidence, physics or the laws of thermodynamics.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  24. #4224
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,706

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Here you go Frank!
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    I know the evangelicals do not consider Catholics to even be Christian, but I endured 12 years of Catholic school (my mom was born again and fervent) and never once did science and religious classes contradict each other. In fact my biology teach in HS was a nun who had no problems teaching about Darwin. Not once did her religion and vows creep into the purely scientific teaching of evolution
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  25. #4225
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    13,250

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    And you knew things were going well when she posted your bail?
    Bail? I got paid!

    Peace,
    Robert

  26. #4226
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    13,250

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    When she got him a box of rattle cans in her preferred colours...
    Do you know how much good spray paint costs?

    And, no, Krylon is not good spray paint.

    Peace,
    Puff Huffington

  27. #4227
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    13,250

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    Dude! I've done that! I used sidewalk chalk on the street though.
    8A178099-1FD8-40FC-BB0C-05EA055D30DD.jpg
    Didja make your own chalk? Itís fun.

    Peace,
    Robert

  28. #4228
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    9,182

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Ok, you win.

    I've make essential oils and soaps, spoon rings, grown flowers, written short stories and poems, and a whole lot of other stuff that would be embarrassing to repeat, but I ain't made no chalk. Maybe if I had. . . nah! That wasn't it.
    Nosce te ipsum

  29. #4229
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    There is science there is not my science. There is my fantasy or my belief or my delusion. Science is objective not subjective. You can't say according to my science the Earth is flat because science has proved the Earth is round. Also I think you will find that your view of science stems from your belief.
    Yep;, sorry, my bad - badly worded...

    i have deleted the "my"

  30. #4230
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Once again, Frank, a challenge: an example of a generally-accepted scientific truth, well-supported by objective evidence, described in the Bible before it was discovered in the physical world. Examples: a passage in Genesis that says 'the sun is a star', or 'light is the fastest thing there is'. I'm looking for any scientific fact in the Bible that's clearly true, but that was discovered by science only recently, with chapter and verse reference.

    If you can't find one, or just don't want to bother, just say so and I'll stop bugging you. But you're the one claiming that the Bible is a valid source of scientific information about the world. You need to provide something confirming that hypothesis.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  31. #4231
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,079

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Once again, Frank, a challenge: an example of a generally-accepted scientific truth, well-supported by objective evidence, described in the Bible before it was discovered in the physical world. Examples: a passage in Genesis that says 'the sun is a star', or 'light is the fastest thing there is'. I'm looking for any scientific fact in the Bible that's clearly true, but that was discovered by science only recently, with chapter and verse reference.

    If you can't find one, or just don't want to bother, just say so and I'll stop bugging you. But you're the one claiming that the Bible is a valid source of scientific information about the world. You need to provide something confirming that hypothesis.
    Before I answer you i need to know that you have a nondogmatic mind and i am not just wasting my time with you.
    Remember you said that a rabbit in the cambrian would fsify yours and i pointed out that the explosio meant thateverything
    Was found there without antecedents.
    I have gi en you a ball hanging on nothing - and you have not be ked it out.
    I have three more examples but until you answer the above im ot bothering.

  32. #4232
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Before I answer you I need to know that you have a nondogmatic mind and i am not just wasting my time with you.
    I have, according to my lights, a non-dogmatic mind. You may not agree. On this particular subject, this means that I think the valid source of evidence for understanding the physical world is the world itself. I also think Biblical literalism is complete hogwash.

    Remember you said that a rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify yours, and I pointed out that the explosion meant that everything was found there without antecedents.
    No it doesn't, not even close. Several other people have pointed out why. You didn't pay attention.

    I have given you a ball hanging on nothing . . .
    You gave me an unidentified paraphrase. I asked several times for the source. You haven't given it yet.

    If you don't want to respond, that's your choice. Do as you think best, but be clear about it, please.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  33. #4233
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,706

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Before I answer you i need to know that you have a nondogmatic mind and i am not just wasting my time with you.
    Remember you said that a rabbit in the cambrian would fsify yours and i pointed out that the explosio meant thateverything
    Was found there without antecedents.

    I have gi en you a ball hanging on nothing - and you have not be ked it out.
    I have three more examples but until you answer the above im ot bothering.
    In which you were wrong http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobio...an-Fossils.htm
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #4234
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    33,843

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Once again, Frank, a challenge: an example of a generally-accepted scientific truth, well-supported by objective evidence, described in the Bible before it was discovered in the physical world. Examples: a passage in Genesis that says 'the sun is a star', or 'light is the fastest thing there is'. I'm looking for any scientific fact in the Bible that's clearly true, but that was discovered by science only recently, with chapter and verse reference. If you can't find one, or just don't want to bother, just say so and I'll stop bugging you. But you're the one claiming that the Bible is a valid source of scientific information about the world. You need to provide something confirming that hypothesis.
    You won't find any respecting geology or physics, but I've always thought that some of the Jewish food prohibitions derive from empirical observation. Not so much the milk/meat thing, but the observed result of eating undercooked garbage-fed pork probably looked a whole lot like someone smiting you. Eating oysters left out in the sun for the afternoon in before-refrigeration days similarly. You might not die, but you'd want to.I think similarly that the whole "visiting the sins of the fathers on the children" bit, and the inverse of bestowing blessings on future generations as a consequence of keeping the law, has a whole lot of parallel with what we'd now call intergenerational abuse or resiliency factors. It isn't that God's smiting folks or otherwise playing favourites, so much as observing things which we now refer to as the Social Determinants of Health, and even more specifically the statistical impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (the "ACE score") on an adult's mental and (surprisingly) physical health.In each case, the positive/negative impacts ascribed biblically to God's benevolence or rage are still understood as measurable positive/negative impacts. It's just that the interpretive framework to understand why this/that action has this/that consequence has shifted.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  35. #4235
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    . . . I've always thought that some of the Jewish food prohibitions derive from empirical observation.
    Very likely. There's a fair amount of good sense there, but ritualized and mixed with a lot of us/them tribal identity stuff.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •