Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

O.T. - Climbing For Christ Australia


rodw

9-May-2010
10:15:59 AM

The far religious right have be known to confuse religious belief with science...how can you otherwise account for someone pushing Intelligent design as a proper scientific fact with a straight face?


Hendo

9-May-2010
10:50:42 AM

On 9/05/2010 rodw wrote:
>The far religious right have be known to confuse religious belief with
>science...how can you otherwise account for someone pushing Intelligent
>design as a proper scientific fact with a straight face?

I doubt very much this sort of thing is new, particularly the concept of intelligent design by a mathematical intelligence. Since (particularly through some periods,) much of science has been performed in, and sponsored by religious institutions and conducted by religious people, you could argue that many ideas in science are religious ideas.

Interestingly, nobody seems to be able to come up with THE scientific method. I.e. no clear way of distinguishing between all things considered scientific and all things considered non-scientific. Useful to keep in mind.

patto

9-May-2010
11:38:19 AM

On 9/05/2010 Hendo wrote:
>Interestingly, nobody seems to be able to come up with THE scientific
>method. I.e. no clear way of distinguishing between all things considered
>scientific and all things considered non-scientific. Useful to keep in
>mind.
>
Useful to keep in mind!?

What the hell are you on about?: "no clear way of distinguishing between all things considered scientific and all things considered non-scientific"

Why is there a requirement for "THE" scientific method and more than there is a requirement for "THE" economic method or "THE" religious method.


rodw

9-May-2010
3:59:26 PM

Sorry hendo intellegent design has nothing to do with science...basically is used to try and debunk theory of Evolution and used as way to get religion into the schools science curriculums without using the word Creationism.

More here in wiki....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

But the best quote from it the sums it all up....

"The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design's being considered as valid science.The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal."

To even entertain it as scientific theory is absurd...its up there with Dianetics and should be treated as such.

another dave

9-May-2010
4:50:25 PM

I'm breaking this up because it is long. Sorry.
Read it or ignore it its up to you.
However arguments are always fun.

Guys do you realise that you are trying to compare a book which was written over 2000 years ago with the modern scientific process. And in the case of genesis was written by Moses (3300 years ago) from oral tradition. And your conclusion is that its not written well by today’s scientific process and therefore must be wrong/invalid.
The current theories that are about are only best guesses as scientist are unable to recreate those processes in the lab:
- Big bang theory currently requires nothing to explode into something
- Origins of life, scientists currently have the right chemicals found on prehistoric earth and currently can not get them to form a SIMPLE single cell life form in lab conditions.
Therefore I think it’s safe to say the book and the science don’t actually contradict each other.
There are also no eye witness's (diirrr) so everybody is guessing. Yay
So in my personal opinion it is silly to make a judgement call on that.

another dave

9-May-2010
4:52:21 PM

So how do you prove God does not exist. I think the best way of doing that (in this discussion board) would be to prove that the Christian faith is a lie. Surprise surprise the bible supplies the answer on how to do that.
1 Corinthians ch 15 vs 14-15 “...If christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that we are then found to be false witnesses about God….”
So in short the Christian faith lives or dies on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not.

another dave

9-May-2010
4:55:29 PM

There are no surviving original copies of biblical texts all are copies. The same is said about pracitcally every other ancient manuscript as the stuff it was written down on decays with time. Therefore everything we know about the ancient world that is from manuscripts was copied word for word, probably by a guy with a very sore neck and a squint.

About the validity of the bible first hand second hand authors etc. The new testament (NT) is what counts.
The book of Mathew is written by the apostle Mathew.
John by the apostle John.
John is accredited with writing 4 books in the NT
The apostle Paul with 6
Apostle Peter with 2.
Etc.

If you want to read about the number of surviving manuscripts check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
(scroll to section about New testament manuscripts)
Compared with Alexander the great (not the best example but easiest to find):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Sources
(scroll to the bottom under sources)


GravityHound

9-May-2010
5:01:09 PM

On 9/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>
>Guys do you realise that you are trying to compare a book which was written
>over 2000 years ago with the modern scientific process.

Not doing that at all. I was saying the modern scientific process has found many many things but not God.

>And in the case
>of genesis was written by Moses (3300 years ago) from oral tradition. And
>your conclusion is that its not written well by today’s scientific process
>and therefore must be wrong/invalid.

The bible, or any historical work, is not a scientific piece of work. The scientific process has nothing to do with whether a historical work is wrong or invalid.

>The current theories that are about are only best guesses as scientist
>are unable to recreate those processes in the lab:
>- Big bang theory currently requires nothing to explode into something

Mathematics - They have maths that explain (not perfectly) the big bang. Observation - the further something is away from us the greater its speed is so it has a greater red shift. The red shift on some objects is enormous so they are calculated as being over 12 billion light years away. Everywhere you look it shows the same thing (no WE are not at the centre of the universe, everywhere is the centre of the universe).

>- Origins of life, scientists currently have the right chemicals found
>on prehistoric earth and currently can not get them to form a SIMPLE single
>cell life form in lab conditions.

No but they can form amino acids. The building blocks of proteins which are the building blocks of DNA.

>Therefore I think it’s safe to say the book and the science don’t actually
>contradict each other.

There is no science in the book.

another dave

9-May-2010
5:02:27 PM

I will however add 1 more thing. The 12 apostles all eye witness’s of Jesus death and resurrection. Most only knew him for 3 years and all died horrible deaths at the hands of the romans, except John who died in exile.
If it was fake, if they made it up, if it was a lie why did they choose to die these deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

ps I chose wiki as a source as I think it provides both sides of the arguement. I was after facts not one sided arguements.
Now because I'm not a scollar I'm expecting the chockstone thrashing of a lifetime.
Please guys don't get personal... I'm actually a little sensitive.

another dave

9-May-2010
5:10:54 PM

>>Guys do you realise that you are trying to compare a book which was written
>>over 2000 years ago with the modern scientific process.
>
>Not doing that at all. I was saying the modern scientific process has
>found many many things but not God.

Sorry I'll clarify genisis does not provide an alternative to evolution.

>>And in the case
>>of genesis was written by Moses (3300 years ago) from oral tradition.
>And
>>your conclusion is that its not written well by today’s scientific process
>>and therefore must be wrong/invalid.
>
>The bible, or any historical work, is not a scientific piece of work.
>The scientific process has nothing to do with whether a historical work
>is wrong or invalid.

Yes but so many people think it does

>>The current theories that are about are only best guesses as scientist
>>are unable to recreate those processes in the lab:
>>- Big bang theory currently requires nothing to explode into something
>
>Mathematics - They have maths that explain (not perfectly) the big bang.
>Observation - the further something is away from us the greater its speed
>is so it has a greater red shift. The red shift on some objects is enormous
>so they are calculated as being over 12 billion light years away. Everywhere
>you look it shows the same thing (no WE are not at the centre of the universe,
>everywhere is the centre of the universe).

Still best guess. Not proven.

>>- Origins of life, scientists currently have the right chemicals found
>>on prehistoric earth and currently can not get them to form a SIMPLE
>single
>>cell life form in lab conditions.
>
>No but they can form amino acids. The building blocks of proteins which
>are the building blocks of DNA.

Yeah but they can't make those building blocks fit together into DNA

>>Therefore I think it’s safe to say the book and the science don’t actually
>>contradict each other.
>
>There is no science in the book.

Exactly I agree its a historical book. I was trying to say that comparing the two into something meaning full is full of problems.


kuu

9-May-2010
5:22:50 PM

On 9/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>
>Now because I'm not a scollar I'm expecting the chockstone thrashing of
>a lifetime.
>Please guys don't get personal... I'm actually a little sensitive.

I'm sorry anotherdave (and understanding your sensitivity) but I think you meant "scholar".

Even so, maybe you deserve a thrashing :-)


rodw

9-May-2010
5:29:00 PM

My point about Creationism/intellegent design is trying to pas it off as scientific theory without the same reviews the eveolution has gone over.

When big bang is taught, it is taught and told its best guess (not docturine), but fits a lot of scientific models currently proven to be true....Intelligent design just says its in the bible let it be so..my beef isn't about what one believes..but the Christian far right using public funds to push a secular view...they have scripture for that stuff....leave it at that until its proven scientifically. (note a lot of it has been disproven and the answer from the Intelligent design lobby if asked why does science show it wrong and the usual caveat comes out" The lord works in mysterious ways."...but they still want it in the science curriculum.)

patto

9-May-2010
5:37:49 PM

On 9/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>
>Exactly I agree its a historical book. I was trying to say that comparing
>the two into something meaning full is full of problems.

And who is comparing the bible to scientific journels??

I'm not even sure why science is being discussed. Intelligent discussion about faith normally focus on the existance of a non physical god. Thus deftly avoiding the conflict with science.

'Science' has has very little to say about religion apart from the lack of any evidence of supernatural intervention in the physical world. Science would also suggest that many of the stories in the bible could not be accurate accounts of what could have occured in the known phsical world.

This presents a conundrum to believers which is often resolved by considering the stories as metaphors. They choose to believe in a supernatural God with limitted influence over the day to day scientific world. Thus discussions become philosphical rather than scientific.

Fundamentalists particularly of the US variety instead try assert the event in the bible did happen. And then the attempt to create all sorts of wacky science to fit into their world view.

patto

9-May-2010
5:42:35 PM

Conservapedia is one of the most hillarious sites on the internet and is always good for a laugh.
It is fundamentalists answer to the bias of wikipedia! :-)
http://www.conservapedia.com/

Here is a great picture of the Dinosaurs lining up to board Noah's Ark!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah%27s_ark

Oh and here is the article on evolution complete with Hilter photo straight up!!!!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

another dave

9-May-2010
6:07:39 PM

Conservapedia I'll have a look could be amusing.
Also amusing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c

BTW I'm pretty shore dinosaurs were long gone (by about a couple of million years) by the time the bible says Noah's ark happened. As to whether the great flood happened I really don't know. Though there are a hell of a lot of legends about it from heaps of cultures.
Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

So far the biggest issue is the fact I don't write particually well.
I agree with you Patto on the most part. Execpt on super natural intervention. Any example of this would be a one off event and science can only prove things that are repeatable, in theory at least (am I right?).

Though my first post was baddly written and written with out that much knowledge about the issues at hand. It was not really the point of my series of posts.
The second one was more the point

another dave

9-May-2010
6:13:16 PM

On 9/05/2010 kuu wrote:
>I'm sorry anotherdave (and understanding your sensitivity) but I think
>you meant "scholar".
I can handle a good old fashion arguement though. Monty Python style.

>Even so, maybe you deserve a thrashing :-)
Slung hexes or sky hooks on a long sling?


rodw

9-May-2010
6:32:44 PM

I personally like the site Church of the flying spaghetti monster...which in short started by posting a copy of a parody to outline the ludicrous introduction of intelligent design in Kansas schools....the hate mail makes very funny reading.....

http://www.venganza.org/


Hendo

9-May-2010
7:16:27 PM

On 9/05/2010 patto wrote:
>Why is there a requirement for "THE" scientific method and more than there
>is a requirement for "THE" economic method or "THE" religious method.

Because people often talk about science in a naïve way and see it as a gold standard. Scientific knowledge is not the result of pure logic and reason, independent of politics, religious ideas, social acceptance etc etc. It is very dynamic and uses all sorts of different approaches and has influences like any other human activity.

My day job is science and it is the same mind doing that as writing these posts…that has got to make you think twice :P ha.

If people are curious about science or consider that they believe in science, Google philosophy of science + scientific method and I’m sure you will find something interesting, most importantly that the ‘scientific method’, the demarcation between science and non science, doesn’t really exist, at least not in the form many people (including scientists) would naively expect.

On 9/05/2010 rodw wrote:
>Sorry hendo intellegent design has nothing to do with science...

Many scientists in the past and present, including many of the greatest names, (perhaps even a majority?), have been motivated by exploring and understanding what they believe to be a universe created by an intelligent being. From this perspective it is relevant. What is currently considered intelligent design is a permutation on this, similar approaches have their place in the history of science.

I think the creationist trump card is to say that the universe was created ~4000 years ago (or whatever) with a history, it only appears to have this long, long past/other point of creation etc. For example, the dinosaurs never lived, they were created as fossils. I’m not sure it is possible to argue with that aside from Occam’s Razor type ideas. It seems to be a choice to believe one way or the other.

I think the Abrahamic religions need intervention by God, a stumbling block I have come across is the idea that humans have evolved from ape like ancestors. At what point do you have a mother and father ape without a soul having a child that is human with a soul? It seems to me you need an Adam and Eve point of creation here. Though it is interesting to note that in Genesis there are other humans around. After Cain kills Abel and is ejected from Eden he is worried about others killing him, so God gives him a protective mark.

>"The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse

Scientific discourse? What many people consider constitutes scientific discourse is not based upon a universally accepted, clearly defined concept of science. See the point above.

>To even entertain it as scientific theory is absurd...

Have you met Galilean relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory? Science has a tendency to appear absurd until it becomes part of the furniture, and sometimes still after.


kuu

9-May-2010
7:19:29 PM

On 9/05/2010 another dave wrote:
>On 9/05/2010 kuu wrote:
>>I'm sorry anotherdave (and understanding your sensitivity) but I think
>>you meant "scholar".
>I can handle a good old fashion arguement though. Monty Python style.
>
Gee, anotherdave, It's a shame that that I'm a pedant. However, by offering an "arguement" rather than an "argument" you don't advance your cause in my (narrow) view,


IdratherbeclimbingM9

9-May-2010
7:38:51 PM

On 9/05/2010 kuu wrote:
>Gee, anotherdave, It's a shame that that I'm a pedant. However, by offering
>an "arguement" rather than an "argument" you don't advance your cause in
>my (narrow) view,
>
~>Then you will no doubt not be interested in the term 'Godincidence' rather than the term 'coincidence'.
Heh, heh, heh.
☺

There are 159 messages in this topic.