What is point in doing science...

Bleeeeep
reply to post by xDeadcowx

 

Faith and faith healing is tangibly real:
www.youtube.com...

Einsteins relatively gives us the ability to have literal 6 days of creation...

etc, and so forth.

Nothing new, but maybe one day it will be something you cannot deny. Eventually you'll have to pick sides, I think.

Edit:
This is kind of new maybe:
Water bears witness?
www.youtube.com...

edit on 11/1/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

"Einsteins relatively gives us the ability to have literal 6 days of creation..."
could you please explain in more details how it comes ??

rom12345

undo
reply to post by watchitburn

 

read what i wrote above. the short answer is, the old testament is mostly a historical and scientific document, but our lack of scientific knowledge, 300 years ago and earlier, has made the information into fanciful mythology

What you say may be true, in the context, that the genesis thing is a very early attempt at deductive speculation, unfortunately based on confabulated predicates.

okay. let's say a science team were aware of an eminent cataclysm (or a variation on that theme), and saved genetic material from several species of plant and animal life (sorta like the seed vault over in...sweden, is it?) for the future purpose of reestablishing life on the planet. now let's say some members of that team were "sorcerers" (another word for pharmacology/medicine in ancient hebrew). and let's say the word became synonmous with the symbol for life (dna). have you seen dna? looks like a serpent. ever seen the ancient symbol for doctor of medicine? a serpent wound around a staff (tree). the whole thing is advanced science, couched in metaphor and symbols that critics of the text, 300 years ago, did not recognize.

undo
reply to post by watchitburn

 

read what i wrote above. the short answer is, the old testament is mostly a historical and scientific document, but our lack of scientific knowledge, 300 years ago and earlier, has made the information into fanciful mythology

Bible is not historical or scientific document - it is literate, and this is how is treated in today public schools in USA and rest of the world.

Bible is written in times when modern science did not exist and whoever wrote it (or in better words, copied it from other existing religions) somehow managed to exclude accumulated knowledge of the time and progress in science of ancient civilizations. For example, even old Egyptians knew approximate distance between Sun and Earth, while bible not only does not acknowledge that earth is orbiting Sun, but places earth in center of known world.

If you like science, can you explain to me who and how measured distance between earth and sun and when?

SuperFrog
if is only right when agrees with the bible?

This is closing statement of following video and in mu opinion it best describes contradiction between science and religion. At least one of Creationist was brave enough to show courage and state that if scientific and religious finding yield different results - only correct is religious one.

Just small note, in this context, it is not all religion, but fundamental religion. Only difference between normal and fundamental religion is that one of them will make change as needed in the order to keep flock together.

This in my opinion would not be problem, believe what you want, but people like this are in politics and in everyday life...

Scary...

edit on 1-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

Nobody should NEVER argue with someone who says, "God told me"
This words are the beginning of all suffering.

teamcommander
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Which religion are you referring to as being proven right by science?

No religion has ever been proven by science, especially not Scientology, which is in my opinion misuse of the word science.

Reason I said that I think Catholicism will probably survive for long is just because I see that as business - and they have huge wealth collected trough past 2 thousands years and in past are showing more willingness to adopt to science then rest of religions. (especially more then Islam, which in my opinion is like organism that does not like to adopt to new surrounding - thus we see huge decline in science, life, human rights and every other aspect in countries where this is major religion)
Your story reminds me of great George Carlin.

undo

rom12345

undo
reply to post by watchitburn

 

read what i wrote above. the short answer is, the old testament is mostly a historical and scientific document, but our lack of scientific knowledge, 300 years ago and earlier, has made the information into fanciful mythology

What you say may be true, in the context, that the genesis thing is a very early attempt at deductive speculation, unfortunately based on confabulated predicates.

okay. let's say a science team were aware of an eminent cataclysm (or a variation on that theme), and saved genetic material from several species of plant and animal life (sorta like the seed vault over in...sweden, is it?) for the future purpose of reestablishing life on the planet. now let's say some members of that team were "sorcerers" (another word for pharmacology/medicine in ancient hebrew). and let's say the word became synonmous with the symbol for life (dna). have you seen dna? looks like a serpent. ever seen the ancient symbol for doctor of medicine? a serpent wound around a staff (tree). the whole thing is advanced science, couched in metaphor and symbols that critics of the text, 300 years ago, did not recognize.

So what you saying is that genesis is a kind of nursery rhyme, for it's time.
Hope they kept the real stuff, hopefully in a place we can find.

reply to post by KrzYma


en.wikipedia.org...

The short answer is that time is experienced relativity. Time depends on whose view point you're referencing and from whence they view it.

If you are asking for a theory, mine is that time comes from God's will, and, relative to us, his will/time, comes from what we perceive to be our future. That is, time is deterministic and unfolds the makeup of reality with our actions enacting what time/will has already created.

Think: everything that will occur was set forth from the first bang - all actions have been reactions from that first thing. Then switch the bang to God's will.

Here is another theory, if you like:
www.youtube.com...

Bleeeeep
reply to post by KrzYma

 

en.wikipedia.org...

The short answer is that time is experienced relativity. Time depends on whose view point you're referencing and from whence they view it.

yes, sure, you are right... Now, tell me, how do we define a Day ??

reply to post by SuperFrog


O K, since you ask a question, allow me to give you an answer and then a challenge.

The "point of doing science" is for the over-all advancement of mankind and his society.

That is your answer.

Now for the challenge...

If you have absolute belief in your religion, which ever it may be; then unplug the computer you are using and throw it out the nearest window.
Oh, come to think of it close that window and never use it again for looking through or any other reason. It is a product of science.

Next go out and set fire to your car. That is also a product of science and men was not made to sit down and ride; he was made to walk everywhere he needed to go.

I could go on and on but I think you can get my point by now.
Let me know how that walking around is coming along with the wife and kids.

So many anti-theist threads lately...it's starting to get old. Seriously, we're just covering the same ground here. There's nothing to be said that hasn't already been said a dozen times.

And that's coming from an atheist. .__.

SuperFrog
if is only right when agrees with the bible?

This is closing statement of following video and in mu opinion it best describes contradiction between science and religion. At least one of Creationist was brave enough to show courage and state that if scientific and religious finding yield different results - only correct is religious one.

Just small note, in this context, it is not all religion, but fundamental religion. Only difference between normal and fundamental religion is that one of them will make change as needed in the order to keep flock together.

This in my opinion would not be problem, believe what you want, but people like this are in politics and in everyday life...

Scary...

edit on 1-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

"Young earth" creationists don't even agree with the Bible. For a group who goes on and on about Biblical literalism, they certainly like to put stuff in that isn't even in there. Where in the Bible does it talk about a layer of ice covering the entire atmosphere for example.

SuperFrog

undo
reply to post by watchitburn

 

read what i wrote above. the short answer is, the old testament is mostly a historical and scientific document, but our lack of scientific knowledge, 300 years ago and earlier, has made the information into fanciful mythology

Bible is not historical or scientific document - it is literate, and this is how is treated in today public schools in USA and rest of the world.

Bible is written in times when modern science did not exist and whoever wrote it (or in better words, copied it from other existing religions) somehow managed to exclude accumulated knowledge of the time and progress in science of ancient civilizations. For example, even old Egyptians knew approximate distance between Sun and Earth, while bible not only does not acknowledge that earth is orbiting Sun, but places earth in center of known world.

If you like science, can you explain to me who and how measured distance between earth and sun and when?

edit on 1-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

okay, follow me here for a second:

the rise of atheistic world view (which to me, means the rise of the world view which states that old texts are nonsense), was started by catholic priests in the service of the pope, for the sole purpose of removing from existence, any world view which was not in accordance with the pope's interpretations.

this started out initially, by removing from historical consideration, any ancient text that disagreed with the current view of the pope. the first attempt was made by a guy named frederick wolfe who wrote a text called, the homeric problem. in it, he tried to claim the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time their annals, epics and other state documents, were said to be written. he was proven wrong later as a result of archaeology, but the papacy agreed with his appraisal and thus ancient grecian documents were tossed in the historical trash bin. mind you, this was happening at the university level (all universities back then, were catholic), over 300 years ago and before the advent of archaeology.

since greek documents were a lynch pin in the historicity of other ancient texts, from other ancient cultures, they no longer provided evidence to support the other texts. one by one, the entirety of the texts of the ancient world were ruled mythological and removed from historical consideration. till all that remained was the pope's interpretation of the bible. the problem here was, the pope's interpretation of the bible back then, is not what the bible actually says, most of the time. this problem is further exacerbated by people who don't study it (particularly in its original language) for themselves, but just take someone else's word for it. this has resulted in large swaths of people parroting papal writs and decrees instead of the actual text.

some enterprising young student noticed that the bible no longer had any corroborating evidence for its historicity, since no other historical documents remained to support it, and thus began what is called the "enlightenment" period, which is really just the first time people realized the popes were wrong, not that ancient texts were wrong themselves.

in effect, you are quoting papal interpretations as your evidence that the ancient texts of the bible are hogwash.

reply to post by teamcommander


Not sure why so strange reply to my post.

The "point of doing science" is for the over-all advancement of mankind and his society.

I completely agree and in my opinion the same can't be said for any of religion. Each of them is serving just itself and used to control/manipulate humans into following of so called morality. Thankfully, thanks to advance in human psychology, most of those teachings are behind us, such as the one to kill someone who does not believe in the same God as you.

Problem that I see here is that today, in 21st century there are still many adults who believe in stories that are in pair with tooth fairy and santa claus stories for children.

Do we really need religion to treat others the same way we would like to be treated?

reply to post by undo
You appear to present the view that an advanced civilization or being , left behind in their exit, inscriptions that hold the truth of the universe. I'm still not sure about this one, I'm leaning toward the forward momentum of truthful, and useful information.

SuperFrog
reply to post by teamcommander

 

Not sure why so strange reply to my post.

The "point of doing science" is for the over-all advancement of mankind and his society.

I completely agree and in my opinion the same can't be said for any of religion. Each of them is serving just itself and used to control/manipulate humans into following of so called morality. Thankfully, thanks to advance in human psychology, most of those teachings are behind us, such as the one to kill someone who does not believe in the same God as you.

Problem that I see here is that today, in 21st century there are still many adults who believe in stories that are in pair with tooth fairy and santa claus stories for children.

Do we really need religion to treat others the same way we would like to be treated?

it is EXTREMELY important to retain our ancient texts because they reveal things WE NEED TO KNOW. not because we agree with murdering people, not because we think women are inferior, but because they reveal important data about our past that the current mainstream view, will not consider, other than the fact more and more of it has been fleshed out and verified as historical, as a result of archaeology.

reply to post by undo


I am not sure that I can follow any of this. So you are telling me that atheism is actually pope's conspiracy? Is that right?

Writing did not start with bible, no matter what pastor tells you.

Let's look at religion this way - for million of years life on earth existed. We see that from fossil records, don't we?

Still with me?

About 200 years ago modern human developed and kind of separated from rest of its ape humanoid family (apes)

Still with me...

All those species get born, live and die, generation after generation... in mean time we get better and better and using and building tools, hunt and gathering.

This is still verifiable from archeological records.

Still with me?

About more then 7-10 thousands year humans started with agriculture close to nutritious river banks such as Nile, Tigris & Euphrates. This marks start of first civilizations and ancient history. We do have lots of archeological proof for this. First writings and first religions started here as well.

Didn't loos ya yet, did I?

Question -what was God doing all of that time, for what we have archeological evidence?

undo
it is EXTREMELY important to retain our ancient texts because they reveal things WE NEED TO KNOW. not because we agree with murdering people, not because we think women are inferior, but because they reveal important data about our past that the current mainstream view, will not consider, other than the fact more and more of it has been fleshed out as a result of archaeology.

Why?

You don't think we can do fine on our own?

SuperFrog
reply to post by teamcommander

 

Not sure why so strange reply to my post.

The "point of doing science" is for the over-all advancement of mankind and his society.

I completely agree and in my opinion the same can't be said for any of religion. Each of them is serving just itself and used to control/manipulate humans into following of so called morality. Thankfully, thanks to advance in human psychology, most of those teachings are behind us, such as the one to kill someone who does not believe in the same God as you.

Problem that I see here is that today, in 21st century there are still many adults who believe in stories that are in pair with tooth fairy and santa claus stories for children.

Do we really need religion to treat others the same way we would like to be treated?

Im not sure, but Im starting to wonder that without a fear of god or a fear of damnation then people dont seem to have the inclination to do whats right, but rather what serves themselves.

There is some good moral guidance in religion, but also copious quantities of fear, jealousy and hatred of disbelievers.

Its all in the interpretation.

SuperFrog
reply to post by undo

 

I am not sure that I can follow any of this. So you are telling me that atheism is actually pope's conspiracy? Is that right?

Writing did not start with bible, no matter what pastor tells you.

Let's look at religion this way - for million of years life on earth existed. We see that from fossil records, don't we?

Still with me?

About 200 years ago modern human developed and kind of separated from rest of its ape humanoid family (apes)

Still with me...

All those species get born, live and die, generation after generation... in mean time we get better and better and using and building tools, hunt and gathering.

This is still verifiable from archeological records.

Still with me?

About more then 7-10 thousands year humans started with agriculture close to nutritious river banks such as Nile, Tigris & Euphrates. This marks start of first civilizations and ancient history. We do have lots of archeological proof for this. First writings and first religions started here as well.

Didn't loos ya yet, did I?

Question -what was God doing all of that time, for what we have archeological evidence?

quick answer: you are god and so am i. more complicated answer: you are a copy of god. a clone. well, part of you is anyway. this is the point: before the ice age cataclysm, there were advanced civilizations on the earth. the bible doesn't talk much about those times because the bible is about the advent of homo sapiens, not the advent of homo erectus or cro magnon.

reply to post by OneManArmy


Whatever led you believe that people did what is right WITH those things hanging over their heads? I don't know if you haven't noticed but it's not like the world went to hell overnight. There have been atrocities and abuse going on since the dawn of civilization. Remember that whole slavery thing? Oh wait, I guess that may be a bad example since the bible condones slavery. Well what about the Inquisition? Gah that was sanctioned by the church... Hmmm... How about the crusades... No nevermind...