Page 37 of 123 FirstFirst ... 273637384787 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,295 of 4296

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #1261
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Two senses of one word - one like poetry, one just a false story. When Frank objected to me talking about the Hebrew creation 'myth', he was using it in the second sense. He thinks it's literally true, not poetry.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  2. #1262
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,776

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Hadn't heard of Greater Zealandia before. But it resonates - the sediments for the G.A.B. had to come from somewhere else - so if the two plates were adjacent and an asteroid splash sent the ocean ripping across G.Z. and dumped the sedements across Oz filling the G.A.B. and other "splashes " spread the other formations like the Ayers Rock one..........
    Hey!!!
    No....wrong! It seems to me you are not even trying to understand natural processes like tectonic plate movement.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  3. #1263
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,776

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by ishmael View Post
    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."
    Amen brother.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  4. #1264
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    23,313

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    John,

    I've been fascinated by early Christianity for some time now. Attended seminary briefly. Not with the aim of going into the clergy, but rather a general interest.

    How many mainline Christians know of - let alone know the content of - gospels that were uncovered in 1945 at Nag Hamadi in the Egyptian desert? Their provenance and importance are subject of on-going debate in the theological community, but near as I can figure they are contemporary with much of the canon. Were they lost, or hidden out of fear of factions in the early church that wanted them to go away? No one knows for sure, but the argument can be made, quite strongly I think, for the latter.

    They point to a very different vision of Jesus, and lo and behold contain a Gospel of Mary! She's represented as a close companion of Jesus, and one with whom Jesus shared ideas that made the male acolytes quite jealous. Did they share something more? Difficult to say...

    It's likely that none of the material we have about Jesus is contemporaneous with his actual ministry. I'm reminded of the parlor game I've played at parties. You sit in a circle and one person comes up with a statement, say "My goat ran away from its pen this morning." The message is then passed silently around the circle and the last person tells what they heard...It might be, "My goat got a new ink pen today." Undoubtedly it's not a completely apt metaphor, because we aren't dealing with things as prosaic as pens and goats. It does point, however, to a human foible that has to be taken into account.

    Anyway, I've taken up enough thread drift. Suffice it to say that Christianity is going through a tremendous transformation just now.

  5. #1265
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,567

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    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.
    If he actually read his auto repair manual as he reads the bible, the poor thing would be guaranteed to never run.
    Tom L

  6. #1266
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,567

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by webishop14 View Post
    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.
    One less bump per rotation. What could be wrong with that? Sounds like a brilliant idea.
    Tom L

  7. #1267
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    It does point, however, to a human foible that has to be taken into account.
    And of course, Frank dismisses that completely with a wave of his hand and some flaming nonsense about 'nine characters out of 32 million' inerrancy hogwash. I haven't even attempted to go down that rabbit hole; politely ignoring it seems the only plausible response short of pointing and laughing .
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  8. #1268
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    And of course, Frank dismisses that completely with a wave of his hand and some flaming nonsense about 'nine characters out of 32 million' inerrancy hogwash. I haven't even attempted to go down that rabbit hole; politely ignoring it seems the only plausible response short of pointing and laughing .
    Well, the earliest known written language dates to 2690BC whereas the Paleo-Hebrew script dates to the 10th C BC, so that is 6000 -1000 - 2017 = 3000 years where they were telling stories around the camp fire and relying on grandpa's memory.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 10-14-2017 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Proto photo paleo shmaleo
    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. #1269
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    13,186

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Well, the earliest known written language dates to 2690BC whereas the Porto-Hebrew script dates to the 10th C BC, so that is 6000 -1000 - 2017 = 3000 years where they were telling stories around the camp fire and relying on grandpa's memory.
    In fairness, grandpa was only 27 back then.

    Or, wait, was it 270?

    Peace,
    The Year One

  10. #1270
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,684

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Well, the earliest known written language dates to 2690BC whereas the Porto-Hebrew script dates to the 10th C BC, so that is 6000 -1000 - 2017 = 3000 years where they were telling stories around the camp fire and relying on grandpa's memory.
    That's really interesting. It would be a public service to us all if you started a separate thread with some of the better links for us to follow some of this. I find the development of language, writing and culture to be absolutely captivating, but I am terribly ignorant of it!

  11. #1271
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,120

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Well, the earliest known written language dates to 2690BC whereas the Porto-Hebrew script dates to the 10th C BC, so that is 6000 -1000 - 2017 = 3000 years where they were telling stories around the camp fire and relying on grandpa's memory.
    This is completely off base.

    Oral traditions around the world have been proved accurate.

    Odysseus' castle has been positively identified. The only building the Archaeologists can not locate is the swineherd's hut.

    Similarly, Jason's voyage has been mapped, some of his campsites located, and actual, physical evidence of people of his culture unearthed at those campsites.

    I do believe that the oral traditions of Australia's First People have begun to be 'validated' by western science, as well.


    This is not to say that modern interpretations of the 763rd loose 'translation' of the Bible has any bearing on reality, but grandpa had a host of mnemonic devices to help keep the stories straight.

    When practiced conscientiously, oral tradition can be a VERY accurate and reliable transmitter of history.
    Rattling the teacups.

  12. #1272
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,075

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    A discussion of ID http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

    As Humpferies concludes in that study that his arguments proved that the earth is about 6000 years old, the evidence for dipole reversals going back millions of years:
    discussing it is an exercise in futility.

    I have posted this argument several times before, which makes "but nobody has suggested anything pertinent" disingenuous at best, if not pushing the boundaries of dishonesty.

    Got an answer to my question Frank?
    This charge has been nagging at me for some reason so I have just had to go back to it.
    I suppose this is why you raised the question of the acceptance of the validity of radiometric dating.

    The way I see the situation is that there is here a clash between two scientific models of reality - one in which radiometric dating is used as a key plank in supporting the Old Earth model. the other Young Earth model deals with radiometric dating differently.

    Now I suggest that the strength of any model ultimately lies in its ability to make falsifiable predictions.
    If Humphreys' predictions of the magnetic fields had not been verified - if the Old Earth models predictions had prevailed - then we could reasonably dismiss Humphreys work, and indeed trying to discuss a failed theory might well be an exercise in futility.

    So the proper course, scientifically, should start with what we have found out - observed - and reassess the implications.
    I assume everything is up for questioning in the quest to find where the models failed. Note I include both models since both could be wrong in some respect. Humphreys could have lucked on the right result for the wrong reasons.

    In any case, for all sorts of reasons, I would suggest that this particular result warrants serious investigation.

  13. #1273
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    The way I see the situation is that there is here a clash between two scientific models of reality -
    No, sir. There is a disagreement between real science based on the observation of nature, and pseudoscience based on biblical literalism. Not even chalk and cheese, for both chalk and cheese are useful. The latter is not.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  14. #1274
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    That's really interesting. It would be a public service to us all if you started a separate thread with some of the better links for us to follow some of this. I find the development of language, writing and culture to be absolutely captivating, but I am terribly ignorant of it!
    I just Googles eariest written language and followed links in Wikki.
    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    This is completely off base.

    Oral traditions around the world have been proved accurate.

    Odysseus' castle has been positively identified. The only building the Archaeologists can not locate is the swineherd's hut.

    Similarly, Jason's voyage has been mapped, some of his campsites located, and actual, physical evidence of people of his culture unearthed at those campsites.

    I do believe that the oral traditions of Australia's First People have begun to be 'validated' by western science, as well.


    This is not to say that modern interpretations of the 763rd loose 'translation' of the Bible has any bearing on reality, but grandpa had a host of mnemonic devices to help keep the stories straight.

    When practiced conscientiously, oral tradition can be a VERY accurate and reliable transmitter of history.
    I know that, but do you want to tell me that the Noah Flood story is totally accurate, or has it been embroidered a tad down the ages to make it more interesting?
    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.

  15. #1275
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,120

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I know that, but do you want to tell me that the Noah Flood story is totally accurate, or has it been embroidered a tad down the ages to make it more interesting?
    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    . . .

    This is not to say that modern interpretations of the 763rd loose 'translation' of the Bible has any bearing on reality
    ,

    Ya gots ta read to the end, see?
    Rattling the teacups.

  16. #1276
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    Ya gots ta read to the end, see?
    Makes the other six sentences a bit of a waste, 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.

  17. #1277
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    19,786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    the other Young Earth model deals with radiometric dating differently.
    Yes... it deals with it, non-scientifically.
    "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."







  18. #1278
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post

    So the proper course, scientifically, should start with what we have found out - observed - and reassess the implications.
    What we have observed is that radiometric dating relies on simple, quantifiable behaviours of radioactive isotopes, so there is really little doubt about the results. Furthermore, GPS has allowed us to measure the speed of plate tectonic movement, so that gives us a time line as well for the rocks in the ocean floors.
    Have a read of this: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/...-of-the-earth/
    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. #1279
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Just an observation about Young Earth Creationists need for their "science".

    Christianity is a Faith, i.e.
    noun: faith

    • 1.
      complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
      2.
      strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
    So does this need for fake science to try to provide proof of the allegories in the scriptures indicate a weak Faith in need of bolstering?
    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.

  20. #1280
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,141

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    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 - 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......)
    Why are those who "witnessed" Christian miracles any more believable than those who "witnessed" events related to other religions? There have been many people who have been utterly convinced that they have seen direct evidence of non-Christian gods, and who would hold those beliefs even if it meant a horrific death.

    Why do you believe the Christian "witnesses" and not the "witnesses" of other gods and religions?

  21. #1281
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Why are those who "witnessed" Christian miracles any more believable than those who "witnessed" events related to other religions? There have been many people who have been utterly convinced that they have seen direct evidence of non-Christian gods, and who would hold those beliefs even if it meant a horrific death.

    Why do you believe the Christian "witnesses" and not the "witnesses" of other gods and religions?
    I made similar points in #1228 and #1255.
    I wonder whether yours will trigger any response.
    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.

  22. #1282
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    23,120

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Makes the other six sentences a bit of a waste, yes?
    No more a waste than my having to repeat myself.
    Rattling the teacups.

  23. #1283
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,075

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    ok , the supernatural, one way of dealing with it would be to go into denial, "it never happened"

    that works until reality bites and one comes to the realisation that it does . indeed , exist (in whatever sense the supernatural can be said to "exist")

    the question then becomes , "well what to make of it?"

    I would suggest that there are fundamentally two possibilities (well three if you include neutral) true , or false.

    to return to the UFO phenomena - I appreciate that the demonic is a category that is much out of favour these days - but it will serve as a placemarker....

    the leading researchers (and there is one name in particular that comes to mind, starting with V - but I cant recall the rest) I understand to have come to recognise that whilst there is a supernatural component, in the way they "appear" and "disappear" - there also does seem to be a consistent anti-biblical message that comes out of it all. that struck me as odd - why focus on the biblical message?

    and why does it seem that only non-christians report 'abductions'?

    so in those last two observations, one might reasonably infer that , in this strange area, there is a distinction between the biblical and the non-biblical.


    Myths

    again, digging a bit deeper, and sorting through the elements of the myth, one would, I suggest , find common themes, echos of an older reality, and again, the possibility of tracing the biblical or non-biblical.

    it may be objected that , instead of referencing the judeo / christian Bible, one could apply the above to any other great tradition - why pick the bible? well I would suggest that , if this was done across a number of unrelated fields, including archeology, a consistent pattern would emerge that does indeed point to the bible as the primary source.

    Science
    some appear to have latched onto this with a religious fervor , making it their god, and 'science says' is the new dogma

    well let us come back to the real sense of science which is above all that. it is a tool, a method, a process aimed at investigating reality (even those "realities" which are clearly not of the ordinary 3D spacetime reality that we ordinarily deal with).

    however, science, properly conducted, is able to shake off the shackles of those who would seek to co-opt it to their own ends. pseudoscience can be dealt with - whomever is peddling the pseudo science.

    so I would agree that science could be perverted to serve the dogma of ,say, a biblical literalist in the same way that it can be perverted to serve the dogma of an atheist.

    gobbledegook for some - hopefully a reality check for others......

    peace,

    frank

  24. #1284
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    and why does it seem that only non-christians report 'abductions'?
    I have read of two reports of scientific investigations of "alien abductions" one was an interview with a woman who was adamant the "Aliens had taken my baby". When asked for how long she had been pregnant she had to admit that she was not actually pregnant at the time. The second is that of a family member who was certain that she had been abducted whist being asleep in a chair in front of her daughter and grand kids. The explanation for that one is sleep paralysis. The others will have a mundane explanation as well.
    so I would agree that science could be perverted to serve the dogma of ,say, a biblical literalist in the same way that it can be perverted to serve the dogma of an atheist.



    frank
    Now there is an interesting idea. Can you tell me what my dogma might be? And how science might be perverted to serve it?
    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. #1285
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,379

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Time to quote a Pope.

    Words are like leaves and where they most abound
    Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  26. #1286
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,075

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    an addendum ....
    this quote by Rick Smalley (inventor of the "Bucky-ball" and Nobel prize for Chemistry 1996) stuck in my mind in ref to pseudo science....


    " When he finally agreed to look into evolution in detail his reaction to what he was learning was anger. His wife (a biologist, who had to come to terms with the same issues) wrote:
    I remember him pacing the bedroom floor in anger saying evolution was bad science. Rick hated bad science worse than anything else. He said if he conducted his research the way that they did, he would never be respected in the scientific community. "


  27. #1287
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    an addendum ....
    this quote by Rick Smalley (inventor of the "Bucky-ball" and Nobel prize for Chemistry 1996) stuck in my mind in ref to pseudo science....


    " When he finally agreed to look into evolution in detail his reaction to what he was learning was anger. His wife (a biologist, who had to come to terms with the same issues) wrote:
    “I remember him pacing the bedroom floor in anger saying evolution was bad science. Rick hated bad science worse than anything else. He said if he conducted his research the way that they did, he would never be respected in the scientific community.” "

    Sad. He should have stuck to his own field, and respected the experts in other fields as they respect him in his.
    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.

  28. #1288
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Facebook can be timely.
    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.

  29. #1289
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,141

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    So, Frank, you DO believe that the earth is 13.7 billion years old, as Smalley claimed? Or do you, like others, claim that he is right when it suits you, and claim that he is wrong when it suits you?

    Secondly, in the name of common politeness, do you mind answering the question posed to you in post 1285, and by Peerie on earlier occasions? If you are going to ignore direct questions it's not worth interacting with you.

  30. #1290
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,655

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Secondly, in the name of common politeness, do you mind answering the question posed to you in post 1285, and by Peerie on earlier occasions?
    I think that now you can call me Nick.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 10-16-2017 at 04:03 AM.
    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.

  31. #1291
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,200

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post

    Now there is an interesting idea. Can you tell me what my dogma might be?
    Dogma is a b*tch, n'est-ce pas? Litterly correct terminology.
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  32. #1292
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,776

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Frank I don't know what medication you are on but mate, it's clearly not working.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  33. #1293
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    4,111

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Come back Aquinian, all is forgiven...

  34. #1294
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,379

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    No it isn't.
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  35. #1295
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,776

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

Posting Permissions

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