New Earth/Old Earth

[Spacey]

I need some information. I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide me with any sites that would have information about the age old debate of New Earth or Old Earth! Please let me know! Thank you!:D

[SEDShead]

Age old debate? I'm not even sure I've heard of the debate! Please enlighten us...

[s.e.c.t.o.r.]

He is referring to the debate over how hold the Earth is. I, as well as many others, have heard that the Earth is billions of years old. We have also heard that is only millions of years old.

He was wondering if we knew of any websites that would list the reasons/differences between these two scenarios. I don't know of any, but if I happen to find one I will gladly post it.

[Spacey]

I'm a "she" by the way ;) There are many sides of the debate. I have been a Young Earth believer...ie...only thousands of years old (I'm a Christian), but now that I'm majoring in Physics in college, I can see that there is a very large possiblity that the Earth could be much older, but still under the Creation of God. I found some wonderul sites that will help a lot, but would still love to have any new information that could add to my research...on either side... because this is such an intersting topic. Thank you!:D

[Daniel]

Okay, while it is pretty clear that earth is older then a couple thousand years. it still doesn't strictly destroys the bible point of view :)
I think
anyway it is interesting to notice that a lot of the physics researchers were clergy men and even the first theory that earth is older was conducted by a bishop.

Anyway - according to science earth is definitly more then a billion years old. both geology, astrophysics, and biology. I don't know of any logical theory claiming that earth is younger then that.

-daniel

[Zed]

Some people read the account in Genesis and see that "in the first day, God made . . ." and assume that it means a 24 hour day. The Bible does not claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. It uses the term "day" to refer to the period God used to make various items on the Earth but it does not in anyway try to say that the term "day" used implies a 24 hour period. In English as well as in Hebrew the word used also refers to an epoch as in the expression: "In my father's day-" No one actually thinks the speaker means that his father lived only 24 hours. The age of the planet Earth could be 4 billion years old and this would not conflict with what is in the Bible.

Besides, in Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth." That happened BEFORE the creative "days" started.

[Spacey]

I totally agree with you! When I posted the other message professing that I was a young earth believer.....I never discounted the idea that the other ideas were right. I am now beginning to realize that the possiblities of it being an old earth is very, very possible. This is why I opened up this thread...I wanted to get other people's views BECAUSE I'm not closing my mind to this. Thank you for responding!

[squaretie]

I have found that no matter how much empirical evidence is available, those who have their minds made up will find ways to prove to themselves they are correct. The crusades, ww2, and 911 come to mind.

[Zed]

I agree with squaretie. I have found that there are many folks who have become convinced, by whatever means, that the Bible is to be discounted as archaic or superstitious. Although only a very few of these folks have ever read it, they have a deeply held belief that it MUST be wrong. The depth and volume of the empirical evidence for the Bible's credence have no effect on their fanatical belief system. I also agree that these folks share the same mentality that lead to the crusades and the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and New York.

[Spacey]

Wow....couldn't have said it better! I totally share that view. When people close their minds to ideas, they actually lose, rather than gain, knowledge. How can one fully understand and believe in something if they don't know all sides...even the ones they don't agree with?

[squaretie]

I was trying to make the point that religious people find ways of ignoring and manipulating the scientific evidence so that it fits within their own views. So much so, that each religion has caused more death in this world than any other phenomena, thus the crusades, Hitler, and 911 references. I find it ironic how my message was interpreted. Btw, you will find me well versed in christianity even though I regard it as "archaic or superstitious."

[Steph]

Hello everyone. My name is Stephanie (Steph) and I am a new member as of today :). I must say that I agree with Squaretie (hopefully I didn't misintpret your email as well squaretie). Although its great, Spacey, that you believe in God and the whole of the Bible, and that you are now ready to accept the slight possibility that scientific fact may just far outweigh religious belief......... aren't you looking for information from the scientific world? I am sure you are already well versed in the religious school of thought, aren't you? Kind of confused about how this became a topic of religion...?
Zed - Easy!
Don't mean to step on any feet here.......:D

[Daniel]

Ummm....
a small deviation - for those of you who deal in science, don't you wonder how come we are here ? i mean physics and biology is such a complex thing - how can it be ?
Myself i'm not a believer but i think that new religion will be here even when science will advance and so on... It is the human nature seeking belief.

anyway back on topic- although science may disprove today's view of god, it doesn't elmininate the possibility of the existence of some kind of god.

[Zed]

There are religionists who chant various mantras and prayers with no regard to the truthfulness of their chants. I remember the outcry several years ago when the Catholic Church decided to focus on performing their mass in the native tongue of the local church instead of Latin. Many folks became upset. They did not care that they could not understand what was being said, they only wanted the "pretty" sound of the Latin mass.

Such unreasoning belief is not based upon faith but upon credulity, the willingness to believe something with little or no evidence of support. Faith on the other hand is based upon knowledge. A person walking down some railroad tracks in a wooded area may recognize the tracks, may hear a sound that is just like a locomotive and may even see smoke above the trees in the direction that the sound is coming from. If that person were to refuse to leave the tracks because they had not yet seen the train, it would not easy to conclude that the person was unreasonable.

Belief in science in no way protects people from falling prey to credulity and the chanting of mantras. "Man has an inborn need to worship something." is a mantra used by some who want to avoid acknowledging the existence, not of a locomotive but of a Deity. The obvious existence of a creator and designer is too profound to be ignored but the desire to avoid any responsibly toward "God" makes they act in a way that is unnatural for them: refusal to accept the facts.

When Edwin Hubbell published his discovery of the red shift, Albert Einstein refused to even look at Hubbell's data for almost two years because he was so locked into a view of the universe as being static. Hubbell's data implied an expanding universe and it was just too much for even so great a mind as Einstein to accept at first.

The existence of a God is much more obvious than my lame illustration of the locomotive. The implications of the existence of a God are much more demanding of action though. If there is a God, one must do much more than just step off the tracks. For some, the complexity and level of commitment required by this recognition are, like Einstein's view of the universe, just too much to contemplate right now.

[Steph]

Because one may not be a believer in "God", may not necessarily mean that they are ignorant to religion. People's beliefs derive from what they are exposed to and raised with. It is not that I don't believe in a higher power! I was raised to believe in many different Gods/Creators. I am Aboriginal (Ojibwe to be exact) and believe what I was taught - there are many different Gods that created all of Mother Earths beauty.

What about atheists? Because they believe that we grow, die and are recycled back into the ground, that we have no souls, no Gods and no hell, does that make them wrong? A lot of atheists will say "Prove it!", show me God. Don't show something that has been written, something that could have been changed and manipulated. I want something solid! Hard Evidence!

Let us look at what allows us life. Water, Oxygen, Earth and the Sun. If it weren't for these 4 elements, this world, as it is, would not exist. "We" would not be here, nor would this planet be as it is today or, for that matter, what it was. The sun is a star that is going to die. When it does it will also wipe us out. Then what? Was it Gods will?

This debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that, personally speaking of course, people believe what they choose to believe in. They shouldn't be dismissed or thought of as sharing "the same mentality that lead to the crusades and the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and New York", as you put in your response to squaretie, just because they don't believe in what you might believe in!!! As we are aware, that train of thought has caused war!!

I say live and let live. Everyone is entitled to believe, and their belief's, whether it be in God or that there is no such thing as God, their opinion is no less important because it is still a belief system.

I think everyone is searching for the reasons of why we are here, whether they realize it or not. Why is that only one planet is able to sustain life? Why not all planets?
There are so many questions and Science is able to answer a lot of them.
And, yes, I agree that new religion will be here even after science advances.:cool:

[Steph]

Could I be reading into this too much??? I sometimes tend to do that. Maybe I am completely out in left field....
Spacey - here is a web address on New Earth. I haven't really gone through it in depth, however, may be usefull to you. If not, just just conduct a search on "New Earth". You can also post your question within the search category asking people everywhere for their help on Old Earth/New Earth information. Here is the site I found:
http://www.new-earth.org/

[Zed]

This began as a question as to if the Bible conflicted with current scientific evidence about the age of the Earth. I presented some informatioin about how the Bible does not conflict with currently available evidence. sqaretie turned the discussion into an attempt to degrade any who have religious beliefs.

Although I may not share the opinions of others, I find it distastefull when I disparrage the person instead of the belief. squaretie focused on the people, not the subject at hand and I was trying to defend myself. Opinions vary but they should not be used to attack other people.

People like Colonel John M. Chivington and Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer were of the opinion that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Their views were shared by many of the descendants of Europeans who were moving west into lands previously inhabited only by Native Americans. If you lived back when Chivington and Custer still walked, would you have been of the opinion that those “Indians” should not be allowed to defend themselves?

I only suspected bigotry in squaretie's expression:

"I have found that no matter how much empirical evidence is available, those who have their minds made up will find ways to prove to themselves they are correct. The crusades, ww2, and 911 come to mind."

but he clarified it with:

"I was trying to make the point that religious people find ways of ignoring and manipulating the scientific evidence so that it fits within their own views."

He also said when referring to the beliefs of religious persons:

"I regard it as `archaic or superstitious.'"

You though seem to have missed all of those, what some would consider inflammatory, statements. Instead you chose to side with him by saying:

"They shouldn't be dismissed or thought of as sharing "the same mentality that lead to the crusades and the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and New York", as you put in your response to squaretie, just because they don't believe in what you might believe in!!! As we are aware, that train of thought has caused war!!"

It seems therefore that you missed the point that squaretie was making an attack upon those who do not share HIS beliefs and I was simply using his same analogies to try to reason that BIGOTRY is the real problem. Hatred of religious persons is just as bad when it is expressed by one who is irreligious as when it is expressed by one religion against another. The Sand Creek Massacre was obscene. The crusades were obscene. Hitler's pogroms were obscene. The attacks on September 11 were obscene. The first was based on a hatred of indigenous beliefs. The next were from a hatred of Islamic policies. The third was a neo pagan hatred of almost everybody! The latest pogrom is aimed at North Americans and Jews.

There was a religionist born in 1892 named Martin Niemoeller. He died in 1984. He once said of the Nazi insanity:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

For thousands of years man has been finding ways to express novel forms of xenophobia. squaretie is right is recognizing that much of that xenophobia was based upon religious beliefs. Narrow-minded religious zealots have often come to the conclusion that “the other guy” is the whole problem on the Earth. It is foolhardy to discount other motivations for xenophobia and bigotry however. To PRACTICE xenophobia in the name of hating xenophobia is ludicrous! To hate religionists because religionists have practiced hatred is futile. Remember, whenever you give in to hatred, you harm yourself more than the object of your hatred for you surrender your own humanity.

[Daniel]

Just to clarifiy something up -
From the impression i got here, it appears that some think that WWII was a result of religous fanatics - but this is not the case.
The germans did what they did out of sheer stupidity (in soft words), believing in something called the race theory.
I won't expand, but in short it was not based on religion - but rather on the belief that one human was born better then the other.

[Zed]

I agree that racial superiority was the prime motivating force behind Hitler's campaigns. But his conclusions of racial superiority had their roots in his odd religious beliefs.

Spacey's question focused on how science and the Bible compliment/contradict each other. The Bible is an amazing book. It is the most widely published work in the history of man. It has been quoted more than any other work ever. It has been used for good but it has also been misused for bad. Hitler twisted some things in the Bible to try to garner support for his hatreds of Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others. He used the philosophies of Fredric Nietzsche in a way that Nietzsche probably never intended also. He even figured out a way to twist some of the compositions of Richard Wagner into support for his racisim.

Thousands of specific religions CLAIM to be based upon the Bible. Those religions have dogmas that contradict the dogmas of other religions, but the Bible itself is consistent. It has been attacked on occasion as being inaccurate in various scientific areas. Archeologists have, on numerous occasions, said that this or that expression in the Bible was pure fiction only to be proved wrong as evidence supporting the Bible came to light years or sometimes even centuries later.

The Bible was not written to be a scientific textbook. It was intended to give mankind an insight into God's plans for the future and his requirements for our actions and methods of dealing with each other. When it does mention something of a scientific nature however it has consistently been shown to be accurate. At a time when most of civilization saw the Earth as a flat disk supported elephants standing upon the back of a turtle swimming in a cosmic sea the Bible, at Job 26:7 said that the Earth was suspended from nothing. Aristotle recognized that the Earth must be a sphere from his observations of the shadows he saw on the face of the moon during lunar eclipses. But the Bible had already defined the Earth as a sphere in Isaiah 40:22 several centuries before Aristotle.

Spacey's question is one that deserves serious consideration. Does the Bible contradict the evidence of the Earth's age? The attacks on the Bible are frivolous in my view. I make the charge of frivolity due to the dearth of evidence supporting any of those attacks.

There is, quite clearly, much room to attack specific doctrines of various religions that claim to use the Bible as their support but you will have a very hard time attacking the Bible itself. It also is easy to see the horrible suffering that has come from various religious theories over the centuries. That is not the issue here however. Perhaps if Steph or squaretie started a thread where they could espouse their views on the various dogmas of religious organizations this thread could go back to focusing on weather or not the Bible supports the concept of an ancient (billions of years old) earth

[bryce]

Originally posted by Daniel
Just to clarifiy something up -
From the impression i got here, it appears that some think that WWII was a result of religous fanatics - but this is not the case.
The germans did what they did out of sheer stupidity (in soft words), believing in something called the race theory.
I won't expand, but in short it was not based on religion - but rather on the belief that one human was born better then the other.

Yes, but as the late Jacob Bronowski (a scientist who lost relatives in Nazi concentration camps) said, the Nazi's belief system and religious belief systems have/had one thing in common:

The belief in an Absolute Truth, unchecked and unchangable by verifiable real-world evidence.

This is why many fundamentalist Christians deny the mountians of colaborating evidence from just about every branch of science pointing to an "old Earth" (>4000 years old)...because *no* ammount of emperical evidence will convince them
that their belief system (and "Holy Word of God") is wrong. Because to them it _can't_ be wrong. As an ex-fundamentalist Xtian myself, I believed that a literal creation, exactly like the Bible described it, was fundamental to all of Christian philosophy and "truth" --> no literal Creation = no Garden of Eden = no Adam & Eve = no "Fall" = no need for a "Saviour" = no need to be "Born Again" = no basis for Christainity ... In fact, many Young Earth Creationists use this very same argument as "disproof" of evolution and an old Earth. (i.e; no Creation would mean no truth to Christianty) In fact, I know of no sound scientific reason to deny evolution or an old Earth, and only religious reasons for ignoring the evidence in favor of evolution and an old Earth. (Although when trying to get Special Creation or "Creation Science" taught in public schools, adherents of Creation will deny any particular religious motivation, I've never met or heard of one who isn't a Christian - or (more rarely) a Jew or Moslem - so I have a hard time believing that there is only the search for unbaised scientific truth that is motivating them...)

Anyway, as to the point of "Absolute Truth", the hijackers of 9/11 *also* had an absolute religious belief that what they were doing would get them into heaven.

As Jacob Bronowski points out in his book and tv series "The Ascent of Man", *that* is how people behave when they have a belief in an absolute truth. (In science, all "truth" is provisional, and subject to constant
questioning, and verification, and can be discarded if the evidence shows otherwise. You can't say that about most religious beliefs. Wouldn't politics be so much better if political beliefs were subject to the same rigorus standards as scienific beliefs!)

No, that is not to say that people can't
misinterpret and misrepresent science to back up their beliefs either...the Nazi's believed that "survival of the fitist" supported Aryan superiority to Jews, and that rigorous studies of skulls "proved" that Jews had smaller brains. None of this is true, supported by science, or in keeping with the meaning of science and the scientific method. Their mistake was to try and jam misinterpreted and bad science into supporting their absolutist belief system and worldview, disregarding facts that didn't support their beliefs (the same as many Creationists now do) instead of sculpting their worldview to follow the facts.

And I won't say "all religious people believe such and such", or "all religious people are Nazi's and terrorists" - one; I don't believe in such blanket statements, two; I know religious people who are nonviolent and openminded, and three; I know many religious people who consider the Bible to be metaphorical, and not a literal science or histroy textbook. (If so, then we would have to accept the Old Testament statement that if a women who walks between two men while she is having her period, one of the men will die. Gee, I don't see men dropping like flies around women...)

Like Joseph Campbell said, don't confuse the metaphorical meaning (or "truth") by trying to give it a literal interpretation. (I think that there is metaphorical truth in the story of the Three Little Pigs, but I don 't consider that story historical fact!)

But I don't think it wrong to point out that absolutist beliefs, and religious beliefs especially, often drive people to irrational and violent acts. (The Crusades, The Inquisition, the burning of "witches", slavery, the torture of "heritics", Jihads and Holy Wars - can there ever be a Holy _War_? - Fatwas, suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc...)

I'm sorry, but I can't name any athiests that fly airplaines into buildings. But perhaps some Communist dogma (which expouses athiesm) has led to deaths and wars. But I believe that communist dogma, is still dogma, and absolutist, just like religious dogma and Nazi dogma - *any* dogma.

Perhaps, as some say, science should never be used to justify a religious, philosophical, or political belief system.
That is not the purpose of science. Science is a *method* of checking theory against reality, and sifting facts (abiet provisional ones) from fiction. Although, as I said before I kinda would like to see political and religious belief systems subject to the same rigorous standards of verification as scientific facts. Perhaps I'm being contradictory here...I dunno...

When you have the ability to question even your most deeply and dearly held beliefs, you tend not to be inclined to want to kill people over them...

And bottom line, Creationism and Creationists are motavated by a *preset* (and absolute) belief system, and try to fit the "facts" to fit their beliefs. This is the *exact* opposite of science, which must prove that it's claims fit the evidence, is always open to modification and change based on new evidence or disproof of old evidence, and has no - and seeks to promote no - predefined "truth".

In science, the theory must fit the evidence, and in Creationism (or any other dogma) "evidence" is sifted and thrown out or accepted based on whether it fits the theory (or "Word of God"). That is, bottom line, antiscience.

And in science, there are no forbidden or unaskable questions. No one will ever say "That not a question you should ask.", no one will ever tell you to accept something just on faith,
or that doubt is bad, and no one will dismiss a mystery with "I guess it proof of God." or "Only God can answer that." (You can even question the claim of and old Earth - you *should* question the claim, and accept or reject it on the merits of the *evidence*, not some dogma or comforting belief.)

It all boils down to the question; Do you want to believe, or do you want
to *know*?

Well, I'll end this rant with two relevant (I think) quotes, the first from Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man", (from the chapter entilted "Knowledge or Certainty"):

"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

"When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions, that is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan

- bryce

[K6-III]

Then we come to the following facts:

All religions are a representation of a their source culture, if you dig deep enough.

Fundamentalism is the lack of interpretation: literally doing what it says...

[Zed]

Bigotry is defined as: "The condition of a bigot; obstinate and unenlightened attachment to a particular creed, opinion, system, or party."

Bigotry is rampant in religionists. It is however, certainly not restricted to religious ideas. Those who dismiss the Bible because they know of fanatical individuals who support the Bible are as bigoted as those same fanatics.

There can be a strong desire to ignore data that contradict ones strongly held beliefs. Such was the case with Einstein when presented with Hubbell’s evidence of an expanding universe. Religionists are far from being the only ones who fall into this trap.

Feelings of superiority are also associated with bigotry. Speaking disparaging or condescendingly of those who disagree is a common practice among those with a fanatical opinion.

True science agrees with the Bible. There have been hundreds of attempts by those who hate the idea of the existence of a Deity to disprove the Bible. In the 1700s a movement began to question the validity of the Bible. Numerous issues were raised such as the ability of the cobra to hear or the existence of an ancient people called the Hittites. In every case, the Bible eventually was found to be accurate. It is quite easy to disprove the BELIEFS of some readers of the Bible but the Bible’s words have never been shown to be incorrect when it speaks of physical things.

There are many religionists who believe that the Bible is speaking of a twenty-four hour day when it says that the earth was created in seven days. They ignore the repeated and frequent use of the word “day” in a metaphorical sense in the Bible where it says things like “In Noah’s day.” It would be impossible to reconcile the Bibles references to Noah’s years of life if he lived only one twenty-four hour day. Additionally, the Bible does not give ANY indication of how long the actual creation of the planet or stars took. It says: “In the beginning. . .” and only later discusses the seven days in which he adjusted the Earth and brought into existence all the various life forms. Shallow attacks on the Bible based upon this reference display either a lack of research or a bigoted belief that the Bible is insignificant and unimportant.

A real scientist will examine in detail all the data available relating to the theorem or question she is examining. An astonishingly few detractors have ever read even a significant portion of the Bible. Those who adhere to the notion that the Bible is archaic or inaccurate do so based only upon what they have been indoctrinated with and not with any orderly, methodical or organized study.

[sunfirejewels]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zed
[B]There are religionists who chant various mantras and prayers with no regard to the truthfulness of their chants. I remember the outcry several years ago when the Catholic Church decided to focus on performing their mass in the native tongue of the local church instead of Latin. Many folks became upset. They did not care that they could not understand what was being said, they only wanted the "pretty" sound of the Latin mass.


I must explain why Catholics were upset when the Latin was dropped for the local tongue. Their reaction was much more than being upset because they missed the pretty sound of Latin. The Mass is considered to be a perfect form of worship. When you change something that is perfect, you make it less than perfect, which to a Catholic is a way of degrading something that was perfectly pleasing to God. The Latin language, because it is a "dead" language and not evolving, can be used without any fear of the meaning being changed by conflicting modern use. Thus, the rite of the Latin Mass was protected from change (why change something that is already perfect?) and preserved to be handed down through the centuries unchanged in meaning and form. I realize this concept that traditional ways are good may be hard for an MTV generation to understand, but just because something is old and traditional, doesn’t mean it must be "updated" and made "modern" to gain more depth or meaning. A lover of art would not consider changing the Mona Lisa, to do so would be to destroy it. That is how a Catholic who treasures the traditions of the Church feels about the Latin Mass: it is a great piece of art, it is (to quote a famous saying) “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven.” It is the best way to worship God; it is how He wants to be worshipped. I could argue the theological reasons for why Catholics believe this to be true but that is another topic for discussion. If you understand why a Catholic believes this about the Mass then you can see why any changes like changing the Latin to one’s native language would be offensive. Would you splash paint on the Pieta? or on the Sistine Chapel? To change the Mass, to a Catholic, is to destroy its perfection. You said Catholics chant prayers without knowing their meaning. That is simply not true. Missals or Mass prayer books have been printed with Latin on one side and the English translation on the other side for many years. If a Catholic wanted to know what the Latin words meant all he had to do was obtain a missal and there the English words would be, easy to read. After a while, however, the Latin words become familiar and it is easy to see the roots of Latin words in many English words. For example, when one graduates at the very top of his class he graduates “Summa Cum Laude.” This means with highest honors. Summit (high place) can be recognized in the word summa. If you think that it is difficult to learn Latin, well, the medical profession has been using it for centuries to label anatomy and for species classification and no one thinks that is strange at all, or that scientists "chant words they don't understand."
I hope this helps you to understand why the Mass is so important to Catholics and why any changes to the Mass can cause them to be upset.

[K6-III]

By this, you claim that perfection is attainable, while I will continue to claim that one can only approach perfection, but never reach...

[bryce]

Originally posted by Zed


True science agrees with the Bible. There have been hundreds of attempts by those who hate the idea of the existence of a Deity to disprove the Bible. In the 1700s a movement began to question the validity of the Bible. Numerous issues were raised such as the ability of the cobra to hear or the existence of an ancient people called the Hittites. In every case, the Bible eventually was found to be accurate. It is quite easy to disprove the BELIEFS of some readers of the Bible but the Bible’s words have never been shown to be incorrect when it speaks of physical things.

Please define “true science”...


There are many religionists who believe that the Bible is speaking of a twenty-four hour day when it says that the earth was created in seven days. They ignore the repeated and frequent use of the word “day” in a metaphorical sense in the Bible where it says things like “In Noah’s day.” It would be impossible to reconcile the Bibles references to Noah’s years of life if he lived only one twenty-four hour day. Additionally, the Bible does not give ANY indication of how long the actual creation of the planet or stars took. It says: “In the beginning. . .” and only later discusses the seven days in which he adjusted the Earth and brought into existence all the various life forms. Shallow attacks on the Bible based upon this reference display either a lack of research or a bigoted belief that the Bible is insignificant and unimportant.


If a “day” here doesn't mean a real day, but a year “In Noah’s day”, then
did Noah spend fourty *years* or fourty days in the Ark?

How do you know when a day really means a day, or a year? How do you pick and choose? When it fits your beliefs?

Does a cubit really mean a cubit?

Btw, I was raised a Christian, my doubts are baised on my reading of the Bible...

- bryce

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
— Charles Darwin (1809–1882)


"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
— Ferdinand Magellan (1480–1521)

[Zed]

There are lots of pseudo sciences. You can do some research on things like parapsychology and astrology if you are unfamiliar with the concept. True science is that which is differentiated from quasi or psuedo sciences. There has been a constant updating of what is accepted as real scientific fact over the centuries. On occasion the prevailing theories have come to be viewed as quite comical. During the height of the Roman Empire, the sun was believed to be about the size of a Roman soldier’s shield. There was a story of Iccarus and his son applying bee’s wax to their arms and then affixing feathers to the wax. They were supposedly able to fly with this arrangement and when the son flew too close to the sun the wax on his wings melted and he fell back to earth and died. The story seemed believable to the folks during the first couple centuries because they accepted the current scientific belief that the sun was only a few thousand yards above the earth. They were unaware of the limits of the atmosphere as we understand it today. Also, concepts which are now accepted have often been viewed as silly at their introduction such as plate tectonics.

On the subject of the literal and figurative use of terms such as “day,” most people are able to ascertain from the context that is being used. Fanatical individuals both inside and outside of religionist thinking occasionally insist on one or the other to support their theories.

Bigotry and prejudicial thinking can blind a person to the rationality of the other persons views. Perhaps that is what is happening here. You may have become so disgusted with some religionists whom you have previously had contact with that you now believe that they are all inferior. When a person falls into this trap they injure themselves more than those whom they hate. I have had numerous conversations with such individuals. Forgive me please if the similarity of your questions to those asked by such individuals has incorrectly led me to suspect that you too are full of anger at people who believe the Bible.

[Zed]

If you think that it is difficult to learn Latin, well, the medical profession has been using it for centuries to label anatomy and for species classification and no one thinks that is strange at all, or that scientists "chant words they don't understand."
I hope this helps you to understand why the Mass is so important to Catholics and why any changes to the Mass can cause them to be upset.

There are individuals within the Catholic Church who feel that women should be allowed to enter the priesthood. Also there are individuals who feel that abortion should not be viewed as a sin. The Church itself however has made decisions that define what is and what is not Catholic. Mass in Latin is no longer an integral part of Catholicism. Although you may not agree with the decision, or feel as do many that the perceived beauty of the ceremony is paramount and the content is secondary, the fact remains that in 1962 the then pope issued his “Ecclesia Dei” ending the Latin mass. In 1986 the new pope went back and said that priests could again offer the mass in Latin for people who preferred it. I am not privy to any specific data but I would doubt that a significant percentage of attendees at Latin masses are actually fluent in Latin. Most, I am sure, want only to hear the sound of the language and are unaware of the actual content of what is being said.

This attitude has, in my opinion, been responsible for the church’s failure to adhere to Biblical directions and allowed its popes to make decrees contrary to scientific fact. When the dispute between Galileo and the then current pope erupted it was over the idea of the Earth being in a position OTHER than the center of the universe. The church also has declared the capybara, the world’s largest rodent, to be a fish. Here are a couple references to this decision.

http://www.rebsig.com/capybara/capymeat.html
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2002/willoughby/other.html

The Bible does not conflict with science. Many religious views do however.

[sunfirejewels]

Originally posted by Zed
[B]

Mass in Latin is no longer an integral part of Catholicism. .......I am not privy to any specific data but I would doubt that a significant percentage of attendees at Latin masses are actually fluent in Latin. Most, I am sure, want only to hear the sound of the language and are unaware of the actual content of what is being said.......The Bible does not conflict with science. Many religious views do however.


The Mass IS Catholicism, because the Mass is the re-enactment in an unbloody manner of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Therefore it will always be an integral part of Catholicism, especially the Latin Mass because the Latin Mass most perfectly demonstrates what the Church believes and teaches. The Mass in Latin was never abrogated. If you research the issue you will find that Paul VI desired the New Mass (Novus Ordo) to be used but never declared the Latin Mass null and void with his authority as Pope. I have attended a Latin Mass for more than 27 years and I assure you that almost everyone in our church (congregation size of about 1000 including children) uses a missal and understands exactly what is going on at the altar, in Latin. As I said before, all a person has to do to know the translation is to look in his Sunday Missal, which you will find is in the hands of almost everyone in the congregation, with the exception of very small children who cannot yet read. And even those often have a picture book Missal with them when they go to Mass. If you doubt this go to a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X where the Latin Mass is said exclusively, and you will see I am right. (My church is one among many, there are over 50 chapels in the US alone and I have attended several of them.) We love the SOUND of the Latin but we also know what it MEANS. This was the norm before Vatican II, not the exception. Talk to a few older Catholics and they will tell you that people used their missals and knew what the Latin meant.

You are absolutely right when you say the Bible does not conflict with science. The Bible is God's Word to His people and all scientific truth is therefore contained in it, just as all Truth is contained in God. It cannot be otherwise, for that would be a contradiction. God cannot be less than all He is, which is the Truth.

[budcamp]

Spacey

Your view of the earth being a few thousand years old comes from an early christian named Bishop James Ussher (the 1600's). His view of the age of the Earth was accepted by Christians for the last four hundred years. He said the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C. at 9:37 P.M. He may have been stupid, but he was certainly precise.

Most modern Christians are embarased by this claim. Sometimes it is not good to find out the basis for ones myths. Just go ahead and try to keep your religious belifes seperate from your intelectual ones.

[pythagoras001]

spacey,
i am also a christian and very much interested in science. i will try and put straight some issues here. i do believe that when God created the earth, and every other thing, he didnt just manufacture them from nowhere. everything He did followed a basic process. i believe the discovery of these processes is what we now call SCIENCE! for instance the bible says "...God created the heavens and the earth"- today, thanks to improved technology, we now know that the earth revolves round the sun and rotates about its axis. Now we have discovered what God did when He "... created the heavens and the earth". I strongly believe that he wants us to discover this and so many other processes involved in the creation of this world. Note that He could easily have created the world in a way that no one could interprete but He didnt. hence it shows that we are only limited in our understanding. once we believe this, the sky is the limit.whatever the heart of a man can conceive and believe, he can achieve

[tag1a]

I need some information. I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide me with any sites that would have information about the age old debate of New Earth or Old Earth! Please let me know! Thank you!:D


If you are still interested, check out this web site associated with Dr. Hugh Ross:

http://www.reasons.org/

He also has written several books relating to this subject.

[irizarry]

Let us assume that the Biblical time scale is not the same as mans time scale (there is no reason to think that an omnipresent being should even bother with a human time standard). Now lets consider our weary profit who is not educated in a western modern sense and is under considerable stress (after all there is a whole bunch of people who would like to make an example out of him). If the profit is receiving rather complex information about a certain time table of events (either through direct dialog or visions, etc.) with a being that is probably using a whole different time scale what would make anyone think that 10 temporal years in the Omnipotent Being’s time scale is going to equate exactly into 10 temporal years in human terms. There is an additional problem – there is no reason that time flows linearly for either of the parties only perceived to by only one of the parties. Thus from a semantics point of view a few thousand Biblical years depicted by religious scholars maybe the billions of years based on scientific evidence. Note: since this is a terribly simplified argument I realize it has numerous holes but my point is to illuminate some possibilities. So New Earth could be Old Earth!

There is a common phrase I here but do not know where it originated that says “Religion tells us why and science tells us how” (greatly paraphrased).

To throw one more item in the mix – the Sun we have now is at least our second sun.
Since heavy metals are formed at Supernova nucleosynthisis and since there are heavy metals on earth the sun we see is either the second sun or second generation of sun that we have.

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[DaveJes1979]

The calculations for the age of the earth and universe are extremely problematic. Principally, there is alot of philosophical and metaphysical baggage that the mathematical models assume. Science is not the starkly philosophically-neutral empirical endeavour many have deluded themselves to believe. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" has proven to us how presuppositionally-laden our paradigms are as we go about the scientific task. To be more specific - mathematical projections into the past assume too much - that 1. the universe undergoes only uniform physical processes with limited or no discontinuities - the presence of ANY discontinuity (caused by the divine or any unknown cause) makes the mathematical conclusions irrelevant since math can only predict relatively continuous, uniform, and quantifiable processes. 2. it also assumes that we have a comprehensive enough understanding of the physical processes of the universe so as to exhaustively extrapolate - to the beginning of time - a point of origin. But even something so relatively insignificant as the weather on earth is "chaotic" (there are unknown causes, processes, and forces due to complexity) enough so that we can only make a 50/50 chance projection about tomorrow's weather, and our long-term projections are abysmal. This makes it even more problematic when you enlarge the scope from earth's weather to the mechanics of the entire universe. Therefore, I conclude that mathematical conclusions must be regarded as indeterminate.

Practically - there is no agreement on the actual numbers and calculations. Various scientists, year after year, keep throwing out varying numbers. This is because, more generally speaking, models of the universe keep changing (are we expanding this year, or contracting?). Hey, only 100 years ago we thought that space was made up of an "ether." Today they are telling us that such a thing as "dark matter" exists. These things are transparently the result of letting our models drive the interpretation of empirical phenomena. Such is the finite man condemned to. This lack of stability and concensus should give us sufficient justification to dismiss any purported figures as both speculative and tenuous.

Lastly, I will address the theological side. The reason why Christians rely on the biblical data is because we are grounding our knowledge in divine revelation. While theoretical models and figures are tenuous - we have a Witness who can propositionally tell us what happened. We find this to be far more philosophically certain. As to the Biblical data - I regard it to be indeterminate on the matter of the age of the universe. Many honest Christians disagree about the interpretation, so I will leave the matter up to the individual's conscience and private studies. Theologically and philosophically - the age is fairly inconsequential. I don't think that Genesis is trying to satisfy our scientific curiosity. On the other hand, I do not regard the arbitrary analysis of Genesis as metaphorical to be justified from the text (uhhh, the rest of Genesis is clearly a HISTORICAL narrative about real, historical, Hebrew patriarchs). An objective historical-grammatical (meaning is determined by author's intent, as expressed and justified in and by the text) will tell us that God created the universe from nothing (a miracle - a metaphysical, physical, and mathematical discontinuity!) for His purposes and that He guided the development of everything we see, along with the special creation of man who is created apart from and set over the rest of creation.

[star viewer]

Hello Dave,

Are you trying to tell us, that bibletexts enlightened scientists to think that the idea of the ether was superfluid? If I remeber correctly it was NOT the bible but Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, who performed the idea!

Did you know, that the term "dark matter" does NOT refer to something that scientists want to tell us to exist, it refers to something that astronomers look for. And they have good reasons for their search.

Where did you learn to interpret philosphical texts such as Thomas Kuhn? I DID read Thomas Kuhn and I can't remember to have read anything like your interpretaion.

If you want to ground your knowledge on anything else than on science, fine. But don't misuse this forum for theological ideas. If I had a scientific problem with religion I don't go to your churches to tell you how stupid you were.

Any sound thinking scientist would NEVER rely on evidence from the bible!

[DaveJes1979]

Are you trying to tell us, that bibletexts enlightened scientists to think that the idea of the ether was superfluid? If I remeber correctly it was NOT the bible but Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, who performed the idea!
I never said nor implied any such thing. The Bible does not address the matter of ether. I was just pointing out that science is often wrong, as it was when it asserted that there is a substance (ether) that fills outer space that allows light waves to propagate.

Did you know, that the term "dark matter" does NOT refer to something that scientists want to tell us to exist, it refers to something that astronomers look for. And they have good reasons for their search.
Yes, and they are looking for this matter because their mathematical models demand that there be more mass in the universe than is actually detectible. Not because we have actually empirically detected such matter. So, is the model wrong or is the empircal data incomplete?

Where did you learn to interpret philosphical texts such as Thomas Kuhn? I DID read Thomas Kuhn and I can't remember to have read anything like your interpretaion.
Since you aren't being specific here, it is hard for me to take your critique seriously. Are you denying that Kuhn's work established the fact that paradigms and systems of presuppositions drive scientific theories and the interpretation of empirical data, as opposed to some "neutral" blank-slate theory of knowledge? I find that difficult to believe if so.

If you want to ground your knowledge on anything else than on science, fine. But don't misuse this forum for theological ideas. If I had a scientific problem with religion I don't go to your churches to tell you how stupid you were.
The scientific endeavour cannot separate itself from the philosophy of science (which includes matters of theology). I don't see any dichotomy between theology and science. It just so happens that your scientific philosophy is atheistic, and mine is theistic.

Any sound thinking scientist would NEVER rely on evidence from the bible!
Of course, you are assuming that a "sound-thinking scientist" is an atheistic scientist. How convenient! I happen to believe that the best science (and indeed, the only justifiable and coherent science) is theistic science.

[star viewer]

Of course, you are assuming that a "sound-thinking scientist" is an atheistic scientist. How convenient! I happen to believe that the best science (and indeed, the only justifiable and coherent science) is theistic science.

Of course I am NOT thinking of an atheistic scientist, otherwise I had written so. This dichotomy was introduced by your own last reply.

Thomas Kuhn also has never proposed that he was missing something like a "theistic principle" in science. Why? Because there's no need for it.

Scientist might become convinced of the need for such a "principle" if that bible of yours should provide us with any measurable predictions that can be checked.

As anyone who read the bible knows the bible either does not make such measurable prediction in those directions you suggested (at least not the copies that I came across) or were falsified long ago (e.g. the by the bible predicted age of the universe).

This doesn't have anything to do with theistic vs. atheistic science. Any science that does not produce predictions that can be falsified (Karl Popper, 1934) is by definition no science. Even Thomas Kuhn would sign such a sentence. So he would make a bad witness for your case.

I don't argue your beliefs. I argue your way to draw conclusions. If you're saying there's a theistic way and a atheistic way to draw conclusions, then I counter:

The way science works is the theistic way, because God wanted us to find out about His universe. How do I know? Because this is the way which worked the best so far. No other system of thinking has ever produced so much profound knowledge, not even the bible.

So, if you state science is often wrong that's just because scientific statements can be checked - that's the power of the scienctific sentence and the weakness of any other knowledge or belief.

Also, in many other cases science is improving, like Einstein improved Newton's theory of gravity. That does not make Newton wrong, it just makes theory of gravity better! Many scientists have tried to falsify Einstein's theories, because they could be falsified in principle.

This does of course not mean, that science knows everything. On the other hand noone was suggesting that, either.

And if you're adressing this as questions of theology in this forum you're wrong here, also.

[DaveJes1979]

Of course I am NOT thinking of an atheistic scientist, otherwise I had written so. This dichotomy was introduced by your own last reply.
Your statement implies just that. You state that no sound scientist would accept evidence from the Bible. Friend, that is blatantly a non-Christian principle - for the Christian (including the Christian scientist) the Bible is a standard of evidence. Your view precludes truly Christian science from the outset. So your reasoning is circular - Christians can't be sound scientists because they believe the Bible as a standard of evidence.

Thomas Kuhn also has never proposed that he was missing something like a "theistic principle" in science. Why? Because there's no need for it.
I never stated that Kuhn believed so. Can you actually deal with what I actually DID credit Kuh for - demonstrating that the scientific endeavour is driven by philosophical presuppositions and paradigms. It is not some neutral empiricism.

Scientist might become convinced of the need for such a "principle" if that bible of yours should provide us with any measurable predictions that can be checked.
Well, let it be known that you opened up this line of argument, not me. In response, I would contend that there are many things in the Bible, both historical and philosophical and prophetic, which can be verified in differing ways (of which there is no shortage of literature on). More importantly, the Bible provides the Christian with a worldview that allows us to make judgments and analyze empirical data (a metaphysical, ontological, and ethical basis) in the first place. If the Bible is what it claims to be, then it judges us because God's nature and revelation is the standard, and we cannot judge it. By claiming that you have the philosophical basis to challenge it or "check it with measurable predictions", you have already precluded, a priori, the Bible from being what it claims to be. Most self-conscious philosophers (of all stripes) would even challenge the idea that truth is somehow determined by verification with measurable predictions. This is the case with many particulars (especially in the realm of science), but not in every realm of human knowledge. To sum up - your challenge fails because it comes from the weaknesses of a radically empiricist philosophy which is not conscious of or can justify its own presuppositions.

As anyone who read the bible knows the bible either does not make such measurable prediction in those directions you suggested (at least not the copies that I came across) or were falsified long ago (e.g. the by the bible predicted age of the universe).
Friend, that is transparently circular reasoning. The age of the universe is precisely what is being debated here (and as I argued in my original post, the biblical data actually is inconclusive on any date).

This doesn't have anything to do with theistic vs. atheistic science. Any science that does not produce predictions that can be falsified (Karl Popper, 1934) is by definition no science. Even Thomas Kuhn would sign such a sentence. So he would make a bad witness for your case.
I don't think Kuhn would agree without at least some qualifications. His concept of paradigms understands that these systems of thought often support contradictory evidence for a very long time. The models or theories can be altered and adjusted to "fit the facts" that initially may challenge it (remember how the earth-centric model of the solar system was altered to great complexity in order to incorporate observational data?) - sometimes for the better, and sometimes not. Sometimes contradictory data is simply dismissed as being anomolous phenomena or simply a temporary mystery. The problem with Popper's statement, is that history bears out that there is no binary (black and white) verificationist test that makes or breaks models. Historically, paradigms crumble only after their credibility is strained to the breaking point. Not only that - but this principle can only be valid for the study of current physical phenomena. When analyzing historical phenomena, you cannot verify certain theories by verifying a prediction, since the past cannot be reproduced (whereas normal ongoing physical phenomena can be).

So, if you state science is often wrong that's just because scientific statements can be checked - that's the power of the scienctific sentence and the weakness of any other knowledge or belief.
If so, then please verify that the underlying presuppositions of science are true. Most importantly, please verify that the law of induction is true without appealing to the law of induction. Hint: Hume and Bertrand Russell couldn't answer this, which only proves that verificationist demands cannot even justify itself.


And if you're adressing this as questions of theology in this forum you're wrong here, also.

As I pointed out before, you cannot blindly talk about science without being self-conscious about issues of the philosophy of your science. Inevitably, this leads to discussions on epistemology, metaphysics, and theology. Much bad science exists because too many laboratory geeks decided to skimp out on philosophy classes. Thus was born the dogma and popery and orthodoxy of modern secularized science.

[AstronomyGirl]

I'm a "she" by the way ;) There are many sides of the debate. I have been a Young Earth believer...ie...only thousands of years old (I'm a Christian), but now that I'm majoring in Physics in college, I can see that there is a very large possiblity that the Earth could be much older, but still under the Creation of God. I found some wonderul sites that will help a lot, but would still love to have any new information that could add to my research...on either side... because this is such an intersting topic. Thank you!:D

Allo.
I know what you mean when you talk about this. I'm a Christian too, and I've
heard about the same things. UnfortuntlyI don't konw any good sites off hand. I all know is what I've heard about the topic,
Later,

[irizarry]

I don’t want to scar any scientific bubbles but a recent study aired on NPR news stated that 96+ % of all scientists believe in a “Super Being” in the religious sense.
Lets not forget what religion does for the scientist. It supplies the ethical background so that scientific research can press forward without turning into something abominable.
Our society is not a free running wheel once set in motion and rolling down the pike on the momentum of a flywheel. There are checks and balances needed. Just as there are checks and balances in government, science has to have the same so that human kind can benefit from rational thought and scientific observation rather than stray down some obscure road. It is not my job to defend the faith but you can have religion without mysticism. I think there is confusion between mysticism and religion. I am a scientist it would be a very sad joke that we are all a result of arbitrary circumstances. Philosophically this would suggest we have no meaning. I would like to think we all have a purpose! I have even heard people say that removing religion from the equation allows for pure thought. Look at all the great philosophical achievements in human history from thinkers deeply rooted in religion. Does anyone think that a thousand years from now that our Technocratic society will evolved to a point were there is no religion?
I think it will be there just different.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[star viewer]

As I wrote in my last reply: it's not about VERIFIING. One should be able to falsify any SCIENTIFIC statement.

This is even true for history. Any historian who makes statements that can be checked in principle and therefore can be falsified by evidence, is moving on scientific ground. Anything else is not scienctific work. It still might be a valuable piece of literature (as such I consider the bible) but has no relation to the progress of scientific work.

If this principle would not aply, than anyone could make any statement (to this point there's no problem) and declare it as a piece of science:

A: Elephants have red eyes, so they cannot be seen, when they hide in a cherry tree.
B: I've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree.
A: See how it works!

In this example, person B has no chance to falsify the statement of person A in principle. This is what Popper is about. Einstein made predictins that could have been falsified (and still can!). Just one observation would be enough.

And since you talked about implying: Your statements imply that the progress of science is somewhat in a bad political state, because there's not enough christian philosophy in it. What about jewish, islamic or any other religious philosophy? Do you miss that, too?

Friend, that is blatantly a non-Christian principle - for the Christian (including the Christian scientist) the Bible is a standard of evidence.

Tough luck for the "christian principle", who ever made that up in science. As a catholic, I know a "christian principle" in ethics, but not in science, and, as an ethical guide, you're correct, the bible is a standard of evidence.

But kid: this is a science board, remember? So, even a christian scientist should be able to seperate an ethical guide from scientific data.

[star viewer]

Hi Irizarry,

96+ % of all scientists believe in a “Super Being” in the religious sense.

Yeah, I belong to those 96+% also. But I cannot derrive a scientific statement from it.

Look at all the great philosophical achievements in human history from thinkers deeply rooted in religion. Does anyone think that a thousand years from now that our Technocratic society will evolved to a point were there is no religion?

I believe so, too. And I don't see any contradiction between believe on one side and science on the other hand. But I see them as things that don't mix. I know to tell them apart. I might be influenced in my way of working by my beliefs (I'm sure I am), but when making scientific statements I must stay on scientific ground.

I cannot derive mathematical equations from the bible, the coran or the telephone directory of New Jersey.

[DaveJes1979]

As I wrote in my last reply: it's not about VERIFIING. One should be able to falsify any SCIENTIFIC statement.
You originally stated that one should be able to "check" a statement. But checking implies verification, not only falsification. Either way, these are flawed empiricist demands. Paradigms have a way of adapting to empirical data, as I discussed above. Both the processes of verification or falsification already assume a methodology of research and a criterion for a solution. The process is already latent with a system of presuppositions. To sum up, I think that we cannot falsify or verify independently by pure scientific analysis all (although perhaps some) of the propositional claims that God reveals to us about scientific matters.

This is even true for history. Any historian who makes statements that can be c
hecked in principle and therefore can be falsified by evidence, is moving on scientific ground. Anything else is not scienctific work. It still might be a valuable piece of literature (as such I consider the bible) but has no relation to the progress of scientific work.

In this example, person B has no chance to falsify the statement of person A in principle. This is what Popper is about. Einstein made predictins that could have been falsified (and still can!). Just one observation would be enough.
As I discussed already, this is fine for repeatable phenomena, events, or forces. This cannot apply to non-repeatable events of history.

And since you talked about implying: Your statements imply that the progress of science is somewhat in a bad political state, because there's not enough christian philosophy in it. What about jewish, islamic or any other religious philosophy? Do you miss that, too?
Jewish and Islamic philosophy, with some inconsistency, comes close to the Christian philosophy because it posts the existence of an omnipotent and sovereign Personal Creator who controls the universe. Other religious philosophies break down because they embrace chaotic forms of mysticism that posit the existence of random or arbitrary forces behind the universe - myriads of warring and capricious deities or spirits who vie for control of the universe. These worldviews cannot justify the uniformity of nature, and thus destroy the possibility of science.

Tough luck for the "christian principle", who ever made that up in science. As a catholic, I know a "christian principle" in ethics, but not in science, and, as an ethical guide, you're correct, the bible is a standard of evidence.
But you cannot neatly separate ethics from science, because science itself is based on a broader philosophical foundations, with an inherent ethics, ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology behind it. The Bible itself not only outlines many of the principles of a broader philosophy, but has some things to say that are both scientific and historical in nature.

But kid: this is a science board, remember? So, even a christian scientist should be able to seperate an ethical guide from scientific data.
"Kid"? I am young, but at the age of 24, I am no kid. I may have a strong philosphical background, but I also have a bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering.

Yes, I know that this is a science board. Your comment betray the very outlook I criticized above - this idea that knowledge can be compartmentalized, where "neutral" scientific data is untouched by broader philosophical commitements or assumptions. If we are to meaningfully talk about science, in other words, we must be willing to address pivotal presuppositions in our philosophy. To do otherwise would be just naive.

[irizarry]

So you want to build equations, lets not get ahead of oneself. One needs two very important items in this endevour:

(1) One has to have the ability to quantify and be theoretical. Equations don’t grow on trees and you can’t simply pick the quantified fruit from the tree of science (Chapter 1 verse 7 of some science bible). Note: Spinoza even quantified emotions and made equations out of them. Not that anyone uses them (maybe someone does?) but its still being similarly done in some sciences (psychology, etc.). I would say religion (any kind) is still above pure emotion. Back to quantifying reality. So if your dream is to write equations hopefully they are ones that will allow you to pass this information on, so others can share in your experience. “Thou shalt be cryptic in your theory making” (8th science commandment). However …..
(2) Not all things are quantifiable (there is a whole chapter dedicated to this in some science bible), such as much of antenna theory, semiconductor physics, material science, etc. Don’t each of these sciences have a bible (a definitive source of standardized information about the science agreed on but an overseeing committee). And, they still rely on empirical data and recipes to work and no working equations fit the whole process (sad for the equation worshippers, good for the equation impaired). I’m an equation guy myself and find myself kneeling before that “Great Empirical Slab” from time to time. I needed to pay more attention in Sunday science school.

I think the issue here is bias. If someone is so restrictive of other thought processes (not to mention venomous of religious thought) they can not be a true scientists. Everything is suppose to be so logical and scientific “The Spock Syndrome”. Of coarse some things are plane ridiculous and I’m sure there is a long list of pseudosciences people can think of. It is a good thing to maintain the scientific baseline but how often has the theory been so impractical as to obscure reality. For those who are heavy believers in a universe ruled by equations do you really see in ten-dimensions, eleven, twelve, etc.?. If one can see in multiple dimensions, one needs to teach me to do the same (Chapter 11 verse 13 of my own treaty).

So what’s my point for those who can’t quantify between the lines:

Science needs and maintains a baseline of logic and observation that is administered though peer review and scientific debate. This is absolutely necessary for advancing theories. This baseline should never be polluted with religious bias or political persuasion or the need for economic gain! However scientific research marches forward under the ethical restrictions of religion and other thought. In the eyes of humans the universe is first empirical (if we are careful to log what we observe), then theoretical (if we ask the right question and make the correct hypothesis), then practical (if we design the proper experiment), then technological (once we mastered the science).

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[budcamp]

The reason I prefer science to religion is that if you dispute with the scientific community they will argue with you not burn you at the stake as a heretic!

Religious people have worked for centuries to stop every form of belief that did not conform to their own.

The Jews believe that they are Gods chosen people. If there is no god, then where do they stand in relation to other people? They will have no special status. They will just be a bunch of schmucks like everyone else. They must be the chosen people because otherwise why would god have stopped the sun from rotating around the earth while Joshua won his battle with the non-believers.

The Catholic Church was obviously right because Galileo confessed to the Holy See. There are no moons around Saturn! The Earth is the center of the universe, a day is not a day, We don't need to experiment or use our reason, we have "A BOOK" which tells us the truth, and holy men making a living off of that BOOK.

Mohammed went to heaven and received "A BOOK". The hand of God wrote that. It must be correct. Would God lie to us?

The Great Elk was the father to us all. Or was it the Great Bear. I can’t remember, but it was some animal or other. Of course, it would have had to been a big animal, because who would want to be the chosen people of a mouse!

There are more than a hundred billion trillion stars in the universe. God put them there for us. Sure he did! He likes us. He watches out for us. We don't have to worry about anything while He is around.

The Hindus say, "that before his enlightenment Parim had to chop wood and carry water to earn his living. After his enlightenment Parim had to chop wood and carry water to earn his living" Enlightenment is inside, it doesn't take a God to create it. And, it doesn't make you special.

The people of this world believe in over 10,000 different gods. Many of those gods will destroy you if you do not believe in them. How would you suggest we get the right one to worship? One that will say, you are one of his chosen people.

Bud

[K6-III]

The reason I prefer science to religion is that if you dispute with the scientific community they will argue with you not burn you at the stake as a heretic!

Religious people have worked for centuries to stop every form of belief that did not conform to their own.

The Jews believe that they are Gods chosen people. If there is no god, then where do they stand in relation to other people? They will have no special status. They will just be a bunch of schmucks like everyone else. They must be the chosen people because otherwise why would god have stopped the sun from rotating around the earth while Joshua won his battle with the non-believers.

The Catholic Church was obviously right because Galileo confessed to the Holy See. There are no moons around Saturn! The Earth is the center of the universe, a day is not a day, We don't need to experiment or use our reason, we have "A BOOK" which tells us the truth, and holy men making a living off of that BOOK.

Mohammed went to heaven and received "A BOOK". The hand of God wrote that. It must be correct. Would God lie to us?

The Great Elk was the father to us all. Or was it the Great Bear. I can’t remember, but it was some animal or other. Of course, it would have had to been a big animal, because who would want to be the chosen people of a mouse!

There are more than a hundred billion trillion stars in the universe. God put them there for us. Sure he did! He likes us. He watches out for us. We don't have to worry about anything while He is around.

The Hindus say, "that before his enlightenment Parim had to chop wood and carry water to earn his living. After his enlightenment Parim had to chop wood and carry water to earn his living" Enlightenment is inside, it doesn't take a God to create it. And, it doesn't make you special.

The people of this world believe in over 10,000 different gods. Many of those gods will destroy you if you do not believe in them. How would you suggest we get the right one to worship? One that will say, you are one of his chosen people.

Bud

I'm completely with you on this one...

[irizarry]

So we have some doubting Thomases. I wont mock any religions like those daring individuals before this local event, but I will volunteer some advice. “Don’t walk down any alleys alone at night because St. Christopher, Buddha, and Mohammed might be waiting for ya with religious ugly sticks!” “And above all, ple-e-e-e-ase don’t stand next to me in a thunder storm!!!!!”

I can easily understand why some intelligent people would have a genuine distaste for religious organizations. Ask Galilleo (poor sap-he had to retract his beliefs in fear of his life-that had to hurt). I don’t see religious authorities retracting their beliefs in the face of science. Here is a case were I do feel his pain. Its not like a few of these organizations haven’t screwed over millions of people before. And I do have a hard time with the social stigmas generated by some organizations when one does not attend their church. That holier than thou attitude doesn’t always feel warm and furry. And I get definitely jar’d when I here some institution taking evolution out of a text book (lets all just step back 500 years-shall we).


I would at this moment like to make a very important distinction for my argument. I would like to disregard those really far out religions that are very difficult to understand even after a bottle of Bacardi rum 151. Like the guy who thinks his Volvo is actually a portal to the center of the universe or the woman who thinks eating carrots gives her an out of body experience. There are those who believe evil demons live inside the boob tube. I don’t know if they feel the same way about flat screens? It is almost to painful to go on, but for the sake of science I’ll press forward. Humans-those that don’t have a clue (I think I’ve dated some in the past) want to animate things. Try to give things intelligence or spirit. They really don’t care what it is. You see this all the time – the Poodle lover who says that Poopsie doesn’t rally like the hair style (I think Poopsie really thinks the hair style is an inconvenience and can’t wait for the owner to leave the house). Remember the pet rock days. There were people who were emotional when they had to move cross country and leave their pet rock in the care of a friend. Don’t laugh these people became our world leaders. If this point alone is not enough to drive you to religion. Video pets is a slight step up in my book. I better watch what I say – I wouldn’t want some video pet owner siccing his/her video Doberman on me. Just think of all the video shots that I would have to take! There was a time in our historic past where there were monsters under every bed, spooks behind every tree, and women who had a blemish on their body had to be a witch. In France this is a beauty mark. I must ask this question - In such a Puritan society how the heck did they know if a woman had a mark on her body? Oh well-this is a hypothetical, please do not respond to this question on this forum (my disclaimer for the day). Some how, humans evolved past this (Thank God). This brings me to the important point. I think you have all waited long enough. However, if anyone is willing to buy me the first beer I’m more than willing to extrapolate on this paragraph at a friendly bistro. First two beers is a contract!

Ok- on a more serious note. Religions are templates of philosophy. If you are flexible, your religion flexible, and you realize it is impossible to practice your religion perfectly and your religion accepts this then you have a good religion. Even more so it is the personal belief systems that separates the religion from the organization that has volunteered itself its protector that I want to talk about. Some people have a strong spiritual belief system others do not. Consider this. It is your personal belief system that gives yourself meaning in everything you do. It comes from the intellect that a person develops. Some people like to have their intellect led around on a leash and let some organization interpret their being for them. Not me. I like to investigate my own intellect and make my own conclusions (the meaning of freedom). I am now talking to those who are like me. Our universe gets quantified by science whether it’s a biological system or classical mechanical system. But everything does not get quantified. There are some “unfathomables”. Some unfathomables are interpreted as mysticism (by our friends in those organizations) or chalked up to ignorance of the system by us, the scientists. But even above this there is something missing. The sense of being that tells us that there is much more to our existence than will ever be quantified. The thing that makes us special! I leave it at that since the definition itself is part of this thing and its awareness is part of a personal belief system. It is extremely flexible. It gets improved under every peer review. And for all those scientist like myself I give you one paraphrased proof – Gell-Mann’s Principle:

If it is not strictly ruled out by nature its mandatory.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

:D

[budcamp]

I always enjoy your replies Irizarry. I think you would be a very pleasent guy to sit around and have a couple of beers with.

I am not against spiritual beliefs. I am against people who think they know which god is supreme and have developed a superiority complex based on the fact that their God has picked them as special. These people are dangerous. They kill, destroy, and pillage in the name of their superior God. And it makes not one iota of difference which of the many gods they have taken as their own.

The Christians in Northern Ireland are killing each other in the name of their God. The Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir are killing each other in the name of their God. The Jews are killing the Palestinians in the name of their God. Muslims are killing Christians in the name of their God.

If there were a god and he had any sense of humor, he would take all of his diligent followers hold them all a foot off of the ground for about five minutes and then tell them not to keep using his name in vain. People, who earn their living by telling everyone else what God wants them to do, would be held up-side-down. No real harm done, just a good laugh for everyone. Maybe those people would be satisfied with silent worship instead of preaching their beliefs. Enlightenment doesn’t make you the spokesman for God!

As far as walking down dark allies, I’ve done that in Beirut, Bombay, Bangkok, Barcelona and Barstow to name just a few. None of the holy people attacked me. I think they are much more likely to attack the people who go around telling everyone else what the holy men meant.

If God really had any “Chosen People”, He should have made them green. Then we would all be able to recognize them and give them respect. Until then I think the ones that look just like everyone else are just spouting B. S.

Bud

[irizarry]

Bud Camp - So you’ve been to Beirut, Bombay, Bangkok, Barcelona and Barstow. I think I should buy you the beer! You sound ex-Navy? An if so we will have to twitch that beer to something a tad stiffer!

I think you have paraphrased the thing that many of us dislike that some religions do very well and that’s propagate that “Superiority complex”. I’ll have to agree – some religions yield that thing like a warhammer.

I will do some slight formalizing here first. Let’s keep your term Superiority complex because it delivers exactly the thing it does when they do it to us. I almost never use the word God when I talk about religion. Consider the word and the way you used in your forum’s comment. Its capitalized, very western. God is a German word that appeared many centuries after 1 AD. I substitute the words “Super Being”. We may use its acronym SuBe. Sort of has an affectionate feel, which is what I hope the SuBe is, otherwise we are all going to have a rude awakening. Damn, woops! Well you get the point.

My point, however, is we need to take “God” out of the religion and so we can talk about the SuBe. We need to take the religion out of the religious organization, so we can talk about the set of morals that is buried in the rhetoric. In my opinion at this level science and religion won’t conflict.

As for the world, it's a never ending story of the competition between and for “Power, Money, and Religion”. I have neither, so from here on out all my discussions will be conceptual.

Barcelona, eah – I’m jealous.

P.S. Have you ever had days where the car isn’t working well, things are running late at work, and the machinery of life seems to have a misplaced cog. These are the days I feel “Chosen”.

Irizarry
|
\|/
O
/|\

[budcamp]

A "tad" stiffer. That sounds like someone who spent some time in East Texas. You're right, I am ex-navy, but they only sent me to one of those are places. That was Barcelona (a great city with a wonderful architectural background). The rest I went to on my own.

I went to Beirut, to see the Palestinian refugee camps. This was back before Arial Sharon (The Butcher of Beirut) had the opportunity to slaughter hundreds and hundreds of defenseless women and children for the greater glory of “His God”.* I met some of those women and children before they were butchered. Had an opportunity to visit their homes. If I seem a little bitter about Sharon, it is because I am. As we used to say in the South, “If his guts were on fire I wouldn’t piss in his mouth to put them out.” But then again, he is just your average religious fanatic. Doing what comes naturally for people who believe they are the chosen of God.

If you’ll notice, I only capitalize God when I am using the word to show how others think of it. There are people who think of God, and people who think of god. I rarely think of either. It’s hard for me to believe that any being created the universe. Harder still to think that such a being would be paying much attention to one group of biological entities on an out of the way planet in a piddling Galaxy.

I also have no objection to others believing in God. I would never try to convince them that they were wrong in such a belief. If it gives them solace, I think that’s great. I just think they should shut up and keep their beliefs to themselves.

Bud

*Actually he had previous opportunities to slaughter defenseless women and children and took those opportunities. His entire reputation was based upon being able to kill the defenseless without getting sick to his stomach. He still performs that task with great joy.

[irizarry]

BUDCAMP: I respect that you have an opinion on what is happening in Israel. I am afraid I do not know enough about the geopolitics of the area to make a stand either way (I would be jumping into an argument that has been going on for much longer than the years I have been alive). It seems when ever there are cultures that are interfacing and a stress is imposed for joint resources that a culture clash erupts. There is no country that is immune from this (including us). I find this a very sad characteristic of human kind.

Back to Forum:
Just pick any two traits about yourself and there are probably thousands who don’t like you for it. I’ll use myself as an example. I like French fries and don’t like the early shift at work (I prefer the 9 to 5 hours). So there are many out there that may think I’m unhealthy because I eat fries, or it might even be a mistake to order “French” fries when the political atmosphere is very sensitive to the French. Others may think I’m lazy because I would rather go to work late (and work late mind you) than do the early shift (start at 7.00 AM). Its all totally ABSURD! These are just mundane traits. Amplify these prejudgments a thousand times for the more serious traits of religion, politics, ethnicity, etc. Its all baloney!

I am hoping over time human evolution weans this out of human kind. It maybe for this very reason that intelligent life in the cosmos maybe evading (not invading) the Earth like the plague. Who wants the heart burn (or equivalent extraterrestrial organ) one gets from hanging around us. We bring way to much baggage to the table.

If the old Earth did not have enough heavy metals necessary for life and the new Earth has enough heavy metals for life, but not enough intelligence for intelligent life, then extraterrestrials are probably waiting for a third Earth to satisfy their criteria for contact.
So maybe the purpose of religion as it evolves is to find a game plan over these hurtles so that we can joint the galactic community.

Now, these ET’s must some how know the kind of people we are? You really can’t use the argument that our radio/television communications have been drifting out there for years. Because video signals with enough power and modulation to make it interesting have only been around since 1930’s (say 1933 for argument sake). That would be 71 years, thus 71 light years distant. On top of that the “1 over r-squared” law applies. The power drops off at 1/(R^2). So either bad news travels fast (faster than light) or our galactic friends have another method of summing up our evolutionary status. It might just be our galactic age and weather we are a new earth or a very old one (many generations after the first one). Of course wisdom does not always follow with age, just look at the antics our very wise and elderly politicians pull.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[raptor]

I think one of the most interesting creation-related sites is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CE000

Full of hundreds of pro-creation arguments and rebuttal by evolutionists. The link will take you to the age-of-the-universe argument.

[budcamp]

It is interesting raptor.

This was the first item I read.

"If the spin of planets, galaxies, etc., came from the fact that the Big Bang matter was spinning when it blew up, then the conservation of angular momentum demands that all planets be spinning in the same direction. Since some planets and moons spin in a retrograde motion, the Big Bang is disproved."

To paraphrase Yazoo, This guy should get the William Hung of cosmology award!


Bud

[irizarry]

The web site recommended by Raptor is MOST excellent. It’s like velcro. I can’t get away from it. I am now attempting to propagate it through people I know.

This just reinforces the view …. You can take the religion out of the mystic but you can’t take the mystic out of the religion.


Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\