Page 36 of 97 FirstFirst ... 263536374686 ... LastLast
Results 1,226 to 1,260 of 3386

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #1226
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,099

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Secondly, this story comes from a document that exhibits supernatural properties.
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  2. #1227
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    6,210

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Skip

    ---This post is delivered with righteous passion and with a solemn southern directness --
    ...........fighting against the deliberate polarization of politics...

  3. #1228
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    38,248

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    You have heard of fat free yoghurt and gluten free bread?
    Well here is deity free creation.
    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.

  4. #1229
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    21,789

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Frank is trying to reinvent the wheel, assuming that there Must be a better shape, and assuming God will reveal the better shape to him if he(Frank)only maintains his faith.

  5. #1230
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    48,146

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Secondly, this story comes from a document that exhibits supernatural properties.


    Frank, I'm going to bow out here. We are simply not operating from the same data set. I don't wish to be rude, but I don't think further discussion about the purported supernatural origin of the Hebrew creation stories will be helpful for either of us. Enjoy your ancient tales; the rest of will look at the real world to figure out what's going on.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 10-12-2017 at 11:12 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  6. #1231
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    12,303

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You have heard of fat free yoghurt and gluten free bread?
    Well here is deity free creation.
    Dang, Nick.

    I really do hope we can meet face to face one day. I bet we’d have a great time! We’d be like these two, eh?
    This video has started well. I need to do stuff, so I’ll finish later. Thanks for this.

    Peace,
    Robert

    P.S. this thread is the funniest thing I’ve read in the bilge. Hilarious.

  7. #1232
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    38,248

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Dang, Nick.

    I really do hope we can meet face to face one day. I bet we’d have a great time! We’d be like these two, eh?
    This video has started well. I need to do stuff, so I’ll finish later. Thanks for this.

    Peace,
    Robert

    P.S. this thread is the funniest thing I’ve read in the bilge. Hilarious.
    It is available in book form too.
    https://pdfchieftsrz.files.wordpress...g-book-pdf.pdf

    It is old, the science might have moved on by now.
    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.

  8. #1233
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    790

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wi...gunter-bechly/

    WikiP... gets thrown around a lot here on this thread as an "authoritive" source - does this highlight a significant limitation ?

  9. #1234
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    48,146

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    "Evolution News" is a Discovery Institute website; more creationism.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  10. #1235
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    38,248

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Well joining the Discovery Institute is a form of scientific suicide as far as credibility goes. Wikki values its credibility, even though it is sometimes a tad flakey.
    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.

  11. #1236
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    12,303

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It is available in book form too.
    https://pdfchieftsrz.files.wordpress...g-book-pdf.pdf

    It is old, the science might have moved on by now.
    Thanks again, eh.

    I like to learn new stuff I didn’t know before.

    I figure if I learn as much as possible and suss out which lots gel with one another, I might get anvague notion of what happened, and what’s happening.

    I just wish I could observe something without wrecking it.

    Peace,
    Robert

  12. #1237
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    38,248

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Thanks again, eh.

    I like to learn new stuff I didn’t know before.

    I figure if I learn as much as possible and suss out which lots gel with one another, I might get anvague notion of what happened, and what’s happening.

    I just wish I could observe something without wrecking it.

    Peace,
    Robert
    That Heisenberg is a real PITA, yes?
    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.

  13. #1238
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    12,303

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    That Heisenberg is a real PITA, yes?
    I’m uncertain.

    Peace,

  14. #1239
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    790

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post


    Frank, I'm going to bow out here. We are simply not operating from the same data set. I don't wish to be rude, but I don't think further discussion about the purported supernatural origin of the Hebrew creation stories will be helpful for either of us. Enjoy your ancient tales; the rest of will look at the real world to figure out what's going on.

    Before you go Keith I wonder if you could give us your understanding of what you mean by "data set".

    May I make the observation that science cannot rule out the supernatural . I accept that , within the operations of scientific endeavour, no "supernatural" steps can be allowed - or the whole chain of logic would break down.

    But I would contend that science can properly address the question, "Has a supernatural event occurred in this particular instance?"

    I used the example of a hypothetical UFO event where it was (hypothetically) observed and recorded by multiple witnesses across several technologies - and the "UFO" was found to have violated the ordinary laws of Physics. In the hypothetical example I cited of a "UFO" being seen to collide with an airliner on landing approach then performing infinite G. maneuvers and appearing and disappearing - and ALL these events being seen by many people some very credible ,Pilots , ATC staff in the air and on the ground and recorded on phones , airport radar etc etc - (elaborate as you wish.....)

    The point being science would not properly just deny that anything happened just because it did not fit into our understanding of the "real world". No?

    So (if you grant me that point - that "science" can make a determination that a supernatural event has clearly happened) I pose the question, "What sort of evidence would it take to support the contention that the Bible exhibits supernatural properties?"

    I presented two strands of evidence 1. an example of "bible codes" (which property no other book possesses beyond the level of coincidence) and 2. a case of unknowing prophecy in that the people mentioned in the new Testament were hidden in the Old.

    If you have good grounds for rejecting this - might you please set them forth so that I may understand where we differ in our datasets? - at least for my own edification - if you may

    thankyou,

    frank

  15. #1240
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,739

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    That Heisenberg is a real PITA, yes?
    I know his son - nice guy! He has worked most of his adult life to overturn the negative view of his father after the war.

  16. #1241
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    48,146

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    OK, I'll bite: How do you tell the difference between a supernatural event - which by definition is not understandable by human beings using ordinary scientific methods of observation and experiment - and something we just haven't figured out yet?
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 10-12-2017 at 02:36 PM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  17. #1242
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    19,397

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Sucker!
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  18. #1243
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    38,248

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    OK, I'll bite: How do you tell the difference between a supernatural event - which by definition is not understandable by human beings using ordinary scientific methods of observation and experiment - and something we just haven't figured out yet?
    I'd apply the "What is more likely" test.
    What is more likely - a little green man travelled for thousands of years to get here just to appear to some back country redneck and then disappear without trace?
    Or the redneck suffered a serious brain fart?
    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.

  19. #1244
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,099

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    May I make the observation that science cannot rule out the supernatural.
    Anything not understood cannot be ruled out... but simply because it cant presently be ruled out, does NOT make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I accept that , within the operations of scientific endeavour, no "supernatural" steps can be allowed - or the whole chain of logic would break down.
    Sorry, you've got that wrong. If it were understood and explained, it would no longer be 'supernatural'.... it would, instead, be natural. 'Supernatural' , in this context, means 'not understood'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I used the example of a hypothetical UFO event where it was (hypothetically) observed and recorded by multiple witnesses across several technologies - and the "UFO" was found to have violated the ordinary laws of Physics. In the hypothetical example I cited of a "UFO" being seen to collide with an airliner on landing approach then performing infinite G. maneuvers and appearing and disappearing - and ALL these events being seen by many people some very credible ,Pilots , ATC staff in the air and on the ground and recorded on phones , airport radar etc etc - (elaborate as you wish.....)
    You are confusing eyewitness testimony with science. They are not related.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    The point being science would not properly just deny that anything happened just because it did not fit into our understanding of the "real world". No?
    It's the converse. Science cannot AFFIRM anything unless it can be investigated and understood. 'UFO', in particular, means 'unidentified flying object'.... it does NOT mean 'something that proves the supernatural'. 'Unidentified' means just that: we don't know what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    So (if you grant me that point - that "science" can make a determination that a supernatural event has clearly happened)
    I don't believe anyone here is willing to 'grant' you any such point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I pose the question, "What sort of evidence would it take to support the contention that the Bible exhibits supernatural properties?"
    Something a great deal more than religiously biased interpretations of words which could mean a great many things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I presented two strands of evidence 1. an example of "bible codes" (which property no other book possesses beyond the level of coincidence) and 2. a case of unknowing prophecy in that the people mentioned in the new Testament were hidden in the Old.
    This isn't 'evidence'... it's 'interpretation'. You're more than welcome to believe it, if you like... but it's NOT 'evidence'.

    .
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  20. #1245
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,739

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    It's not widely known, but squirrels evolved from very small bears:


  21. #1246
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,504

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Anything not understood cannot be ruled out... but simply because it cant presently be ruled out, does NOT make it true

    .
    Nor does it make it supernatural.

  22. #1247
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    790

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    OK, I'll bite: How do you tell the difference between a supernatural event - which by definition is not understandable by human beings using ordinary scientific methods of observation and experiment - and something we just haven't figured out yet?
    got a few thoughts on this one
    - if something happens that we can prove happened (ie Radar, cockpit voice recorder, videos, credible witnesses etcetc) but did things outside the envelope of our ordinary space-time reality (inertialess turns at a million miles an hour by an "object" that had just left a big dent in our wingtip) then , I submit, the committee of enquiry would be justified in its conclusion that 'Scientific analysis of the evidence has shown definitively that a supernatural event has been recorded'.

    I will concede here that, by that definition, (outside 3D reality) , much of Quantum Science could perhaps be classified as S/N eg. two particles 'knowing' the state of the other quicker than the speed of light.
    - and then there are all those 'Dark' things - Matter, Energy, etc........
    - and Krauss' mathematical magic of turning nothing into something.....

    Science "understands" them - but I think we would be forgive for thinking these things "Supernatural"

    OTOH things like virgin birth, water into wine, resurrection, Paul's epiphany - would be understood scientifically as impossibly supernatural - but, for the witnesses of the time, so impossible to un-see that they were prepared to suffer being sawn in two (that is one of those thoughts I wish I could un-see - a person being sawn in two by , apparently, a wooden saw......)

    Scripturally the violation of the half-dimension of time is to me one of the most compelling evidences of its supernaturality (to coin a word). Just all too often, in too many ways, it demonstrates the property of describing a future event.

    regards,

    frank

  23. #1248
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,099

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    got a few thoughts on this one
    - if something happens that we can prove happened (ie Radar, cockpit voice recorder, videos, credible witnesses etcetc) but did things outside the envelope of our ordinary space-time reality (inertialess turns at a million miles an hour by an "object" that had just left a big dent in our wingtip) then , I submit, the committee of enquiry would be justified in its conclusion that 'Scientific analysis of the evidence has shown definitively that a supernatural event has been recorded'.
    A few millennia ago, some people observed a solar eclipse... and, based on their 'scientific' knowledge of the time, came to the 'undeniable' (in their comprehension) conclusion that God was demonstrating His anger, by blotting out the sun. In their mind, it was indeed a 'supernatural' event... was it not?

    A few hundred years ago, the science of celestial mechanics were able to demonstrate that the solar eclipse was due to the moon interposing between the earth and the sun.. or do you disagree?

    Tell me what 'supernatural' events that some people observe today will NOT be discovered to have physical scientific explanations.... at some point in the future. Can you categorize them? The ones which 'prove' the supernatural, to you, versus the ones which science might someday de-bunk?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    OTOH things like virgin birth, water into wine, resurrection, Paul's epiphany - would be understood scientifically as impossibly supernatural...
    The people of the era of these observations didn't have a scientific context to rely upon, so they had little or no basis to doubt what they believed they saw or knew. The 'truth' of these things is a basis for faith, not science.

    .
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  24. #1249
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat
    Posts
    1,196

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    OTOH things like virgin birth, water into wine, resurrection, Paul's epiphany
    demonstrable?
    repeatable?
    Misinterpreted by overtly superstitious people and reinforced by an overtly superstitious culture?
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  25. #1250
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    38,248

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Apply the "What is more likely" test:

    Virgin Birth:
    The Hebrew word for the woman who gets pregnant in Isaiah 7:14 is alma, and we know from elsewhere that the word doesn’t mean “virgin,” but rather “young woman.”
    Resurrection: Is it not possible that Jesus siblings stole the body away to bury him in their own family crypt?
    A new piece of evidence is reigniting controversy over the potential bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
    A bone box inscribed with the phrase "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is potentially linked to a tomb in Talpiot, Israel, where the bones of people with the names of Jesus' family members are buried, according to a new chemical analysis. Aryeh Shimron, the geologist who conducted the study, claims that because it is so unlikely that this group of biblical names would be found together by chance, the new results suggest the tomb once held the bones of Jesus. Historians place Jesus' birth at some time before 4 B.C. in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee.
    "If this is correct, that strengthens the case for the Talpiot or Jesus Family Tomb being indeed the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth," said Shimron, a retired geologist who has studied several archaeological sites in Israel.
    Paul's epiphany: We have only his word for that. Magic mushrooms, a nervous breakdown?

    How about the credibility of:
    Smith dictated the text of the Book of Mormon over the next several years, claiming that it was a translation of the plates. He did this by using a seer stone, which he placed in the bottom of a hat and then placed the hat over his face to view the words written within the stone.[5] Smith published the translation in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Smith eventually obtained testimonies from eleven men, known as the Book of Mormon witnesses, who said they had seen the plates.[6] After the translation was complete, Smith said he returned the plates to the angel Moroni. Therefore the plates cannot now be examined. Latter Day Saints believe the account of the golden plates as a matter of faith,
    Bible literalists can't have it both ways, If their miracles happened, so did the Angel Moron.
    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.

  26. #1251
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    790

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    OK, I'll bite: How do you tell the difference between a supernatural event - which by definition is not understandable by human beings using ordinary scientific methods of observation and experiment - and something we just haven't figured out yet?
    Simply - If, upon scientific investigation, we determine that the event clearly manifested supernatural properties like the UFO - then that is different to an event like say the laying down the Great Artesian Basin. There are a number of theories and mechanisms proposed for the G.A.B. - but there is no general consensus about all the mechanisms and timings involved to get such a vast and consistent formation.
    In the animal (insect?) kingdom I understand there are cases of virgin birth. perhaps there is a 'simple' genetic switch that can be turned on or off.


    I think we are a long way from being able to declare that the supernatural absolutely does not exist - in fact I suspect it may by more common that anyone imagines.

    I am not a philosopher of science either so I probably have earned a 'fail' here.

    best regards,

    frank

  27. #1252
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    790

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    A few millennia ago, some people observed a solar eclipse... and, based on their 'scientific' knowledge of the time, came to the 'undeniable' (in their comprehension) conclusion that God was demonstrating His anger, by blotting out the sun. In their mind, it was indeed a 'supernatural' event... was it not?
    Well they must have been a bit stupid - moon blotting out the sun / priest walking in front of the campfire blotting it out....... wassa diff?

    A few hundred years ago, the science of celestial mechanics were able to demonstrate that the solar eclipse was due to the moon interposing between the earth and the sun.. or do you disagree?
    only in that I think they probly figured it out a lot earlier than a mere few hundred years

    Tell me what 'supernatural' events that some people observe today will NOT be discovered to have physical scientific explanations.... at some point in the future.
    (this'l cause a stir) well how about evolution itself? 'Everybody' believes it and believes it "is as proved as gravity" - But what do we really have? - a hypothesis, a few theories, and a lot of speculation and a lot of 'Just So' stories. The "mountain of evidence" for natural selection, I suggest, is also claimed by the Creationists as part of their theory too - so can't count towards validating the remaining areas where the evolutionist and the creationist differ.
    Can you categorize them? The ones which 'prove' the supernatural, to you, versus the ones which science might someday de-bunk?
    not sure what you mean here - or has it already been covered?

    The people of the era of these observations didn't have a scientific context to rely upon, so they had little or no basis to doubt what they believed they saw or knew. The 'truth' of these things is a basis for faith, not science.

    yeah, except I don't believe they were stupid either so I reckon they could figure out things just as well as the non-scientists amongst us
    .
    ok Norman I don't know it this is a reasonable answer to your post or not but perhaps I missed what you were driving at?

    best regards,

    frank

  28. #1253
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,057

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Desperation.....
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  29. #1254
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    21,789

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Yeppers!

  30. #1255
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,099

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Simply - If, upon scientific investigation, we determine that the event clearly manifested supernatural properties like the UFO -
    Try again. 'UFO' means 'unidentified flying object'. Since when, does 'unidentified' mean 'supernatural'? Or shall we categorize all phenomena we observe, but can't explain, as 'supernatural'? Scientific investigation CANNOT, by definition, determine any event to be 'supernatural'.... at best, it can define an event as 'of unknown origin'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    In the animal (insect?) kingdom I understand there are cases of virgin birth. perhaps there is a 'simple' genetic switch that can be turned on or off.
    Maybe it isn't simple, but complex. nonetheless, the belief in the virgin birth, being un-provable, is an issue of faith, not science. There's not a thing wrong with faith.....

    ...until someone starts confusing it with science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    I think we are a long way from being able to declare that the supernatural absolutely does not exist - in fact I suspect it may by more common that anyone imagines.
    It cannot be proven, either... which makes it an issue of faith, not science.

    .
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  31. #1256
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    48,146

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    we determine that the event clearly manifested supernatural properties
    Again, what is the difference between 'supernatural' and 'something unusual we don t understand yet'? Innumerable things folks once thought were supernatural are now merely the ordinary functioning of the physical world. The 'God of the gaps' gets smaller and smaller by the minute. But never fear; there will always be enough human ignorance to fit him into.

    You should really talk to Aquinian on this one; his understanding of it is considerably more sophisticated.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  32. #1257
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    22,771

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Oh my! Well, at least it keeps ya'll from beating your wives>that's a joke!

    My only two cents is to point to a likely confluence here, the "belief" that myth means something untrue. Not so Gunga Din! Might as well say poetry is untrue. Our great religions point quite eloquently at the story of our psychological evolution, and may well contain portents of future possibilities of unfolding. In the Gospel of Luke, after the resurrection, the disciples persistently don't recognize Jesus. Now what the heck does that point to? Perhaps a death and rebirth of Christianity in some form not even dreamt of by his most devoted acolytes? Oh, I forgot, you guys need to keep arguing about the science stuff.

    Never mind. Carry on. Have fun. Play nice.
    So many questions, so little time.

  33. #1258
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Longino View Post
    Frank is trying to reinvent the wheel, assuming that there Must be a better shape, and assuming God will reveal the better shape to him if he(Frank)only maintains his faith.
    Metaphorically speaking, were our world a square wheel, Frank seems to be trying to improve it by eliminating one of the corners. Simpler is better.
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  34. #1259
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    48,146

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    My only two cents is to point to a likely confluence here, the "belief" that myth means something untrue. . . . . Might as well say poetry is untrue.
    Certainly. But Jack, we're dealing with a biblical literalist here, who has a rather narrow idea of 'truth', and reads his bible as he might read a car repair manual, a history book, or a chemistry text.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  35. #1260
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    22,771

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Keith,

    I think "myth" is used that way, often, in the scientific community, and Frank had lamented about using the word to refer to Christianity that way. I was just trying be blessed, as a peacemaker!

    Here's one for ya, on the Christianity and evolving myth theme. Cain't fer the life of me remember who said it.

    "Christianity hasn't failed. It's never been tried."
    So many questions, so little time.

Posting Permissions

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