The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[Shwa]

I just love when the apologists of dogmatism come to each others' rescue. How religious of them....

Ah how the righteous do congregate don't they? It's the same all over on any side.

[M.Dancer]

But no matter I think I have accurately made my point.

If you made a point, it's a bankers point, only the teller gets it.

Your hypothesis is conjecture and will always be so....nice point, if what you are going for is a wild guess...

[Shwa]

Your hypothesis is conjecture and will always be so

Whoa, that is a pretty bold statement there Mr Super Genius. How would you like to prove that? Can't? Didn't think so. But I'm not surprised.

So really all you are doing is the equivalent of running off at the mouth, textual diarrhea if you will. You sound like some phony evangelist, always making statements that he can't prove, but proselytizing anyways. Because somewhere, some day, someone will be needy enough to join the congregation.

Not me thanks!

[charter.rights]

If you made a point, it's a bankers point, only the teller gets it.

Your hypothesis is conjecture and will always be so....nice point, if what you are going for is a wild guess...

Hypothesis

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis

Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\

Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do

Date: circa 1656

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>

Maybe you should go back to school....

[charter.rights]

Whoa, that is a pretty bold statement there Mr Super Genius. How would you like to prove that? Can't? Didn't think so. But I'm not surprised.

So really all you are doing is the equivalent of running off at the mouth, textual diarrhea if you will. You sound like some phony evangelist, always making statements that he can't prove, but proselytizing anyways. Because somewhere, some day, someone will be needy enough to join the congregation.

Not me thanks!

You'll will probably get his pattern soon enough. The minute that Morris enters the picture, he is there simply as a mischief maker and really never tries to get to any point. He isn't a troll per se but more like a Chihuahua that keeps nipping at your heels. He likes the sound of his own bark after he has had a few....if you know what I mean.....

[M.Dancer]

Maybe you should go back to school....

My mistake, I was making the comment supposing some one quick witted would read it...

Perhaps if you look at the title of the thread, it's "Bible and Science"...not Bible and philosophical guesses....

[charter.rights]

My mistake, I was making the comment supposing some one quick witted would read it...

Perhaps if you look at the title of the thread, it's "Bible and Science"...not Bible and philosophical guesses....

I guess you couldn't read your own post then....or less than half.....

Science involves the making of hypothesis, refining it to theory and inf it is conclusive then recognizing it as scientific law (or principle). You are so stuck on your religious views that you got lost in your mischief.

It still stands that this subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. Going back to school might be a good start...

[GostHacked]

Tell me Mr. Super Genius, what was my original hypothesis? No looking back, just off the top of your head. Do you even know? No? I didn't think so. Otherwise you would't have made such a simpleton mistake.

We tested your hypothesis with some basic logic. Your hypothesis failed.

You have to do better than Platos Cave and Mr Super Genius, come off it. The jokes on you GH because here is where I 'circle' back and illustrate my original hypothesis:

But I modified it slightly:

Keep modifying. Cause that is science. Your initial hypothesis failed, and you have to redo it and have that tested. I said he was an illusionist or a majician. But that is hardly divine in any way.

The problem is, you are so enamoured with your own lofty bias and righteous opinion, you are powerless to even attempt to prove it scientifically. It was Platos Cave that brought up Lazarus and the lepers, I was going to use the the blind man and the lame man. But no matter I think I have accurately made my point.

You keep saying this but not offering up any more evidence. If you really want to convince a skeptic like me, you are going to have to do better than that.

So... for the third time... moving on now...

I predict you wont add anything to your existing hypothesis. Go get more evidence. I dare you. If you can do taht without talking about my bias for religion then we can continue. My bias and skepticism for religion should actually help you because I'll pick the theory apart, which has already been done.

Are you going to run around in a circle or are you going to offere up anything else beside one passage out of the bible. Science does not deal with majic, illusionsists, divinity and the like.

We can also use archeology to prove you are right. But we have not found any evidence as far as I know to support your claim.

It's really funny and sad at the same time that you and charter.rights complain about us being closed minded but at the same time you can't bring yourself to do science in any fashion. Your pre-bias about the event actually happening is tarnishing your whole attempt to prove the passage as fact.

You wanted to reconcile the seemingly incompatible facts of the bible and science. Obviously they differ so greatly that you are grasping at straws to make some kind of connection through probabilities that involve the divine. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Why can't you understand that? I leave that up to philosophers and prophets.

Charter.rights

Science involves the making of hypothesis, refining it to theory and inf it is conclusive then recognizing it as scientific law (or principle). You are so stuck on your religious views that you got lost in your mischief.

And what religious view would that be?

You'll will probably get his pattern soon enough.

Iv'e seen the pattern to be laid out with you and Shwa about 4-6 pages ago. Round and round we go. !!!!

Hypothesis

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis

Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\

Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do

Date: circa 1656

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>

Yes, one passage from the bible simply is not enough to work with.

Maybe you should go back to school....

Falling of my chair in laughter is going to hurt one day.

M. Danceer

Perhaps if you look at the title of the thread, it's "Bible and Science"...not Bible and philosophical guesses....

Reality is going to suck for these two later in life.

[Shwa]

Wow! A lengthy point-by-point "rebuttal" with an expert prognosis at the end! I bet that is the very first time such a thing has ever happened on the Internet. Quick, call the Internet guys they'll surely want to know!

Nope, the joke is still on you bud and you haven't proved otherwise. You are still madly in love with your own expertise and, well, the gushing is starting to show. Get a room!

[M.Dancer]

You are so stuck on your religious views that you got lost in your mischief.

I don't have religious views. If you would have reqad my posts instead of imaging what you want them to have read...you would know that.

Lets recap...

M.Dancer

Your hypothesis is conjecture and will always be so....

Charter rights

Maybe you should go back to school....

Charter rights...

Science involves the making of hypothesis, refining it to theory

I say his hyposthesis will not evolve, you post the definition of hypothesis and say I should go back to school and a moment later you show how a hypothesis evolves.....Man are you thick.

[M.Dancer]

Wow! A lengthy point-by-point "rebuttal" with an expert prognosis at the end! I bet that is the very first time such a thing has ever happened on the Internet. Quick, call the Internet guys they'll surely want to know!

Nope, the joke is still on you bud and you haven't proved otherwise. You are still madly in love with your own expertise and, well, the gushing is starting to show. Get a room!

I don't believe there is any onus on GH to prove anything. What positive claim is he making?

[GostHacked]

Wow! A lengthy point-by-point "rebuttal" with an expert prognosis at the end! I bet that is the very first time such a thing has ever happened on the Internet. Quick, call the Internet guys they'll surely want to know!

Nope, the joke is still on you bud and you haven't proved otherwise. You are still madly in love with your own expertise and, well, the gushing is starting to show. Get a room!

You are going to want your soother after all is said and done.

[ToadBrother]

Wow! A lengthy point-by-point "rebuttal" with an expert prognosis at the end! I bet that is the very first time such a thing has ever happened on the Internet. Quick, call the Internet guys they'll surely want to know!

Nope, the joke is still on you bud and you haven't proved otherwise. You are still madly in love with your own expertise and, well, the gushing is starting to show. Get a room!

Who is it precisely that you think you're fooling with this bluster? Here's a hint, the above post is not a replacement for an actual substantive empirically sound claim. It's just you dancing around acting like a fool.

[GostHacked]

Who is it precisely that you think you're fooling with this bluster? Here's a hint, the above post is not a replacement for an actual substantive empirically sound claim. It's just you dancing around acting like a fool.

Here is a line I am goin to coin right here.

Creationists come and go, but Evolutionists are always evolving.

[charter.rights]

Here is a line I am goin to coin right here.

Creationists come and go, but Evolutionists are always evolving.

Just like the dogmatists. Jump into ad hominem instead of going back to "test". THAT is your religion guys.....

Once you dismiss scientific tests as you have and replace the reasoning with your opinions, you are no longer a scientist or even a healthy skeptic. You are religious, inserting your "belief" instead of asking questions.

[ToadBrother]

Just like the dogmatists. Jump into ad hominem instead of going back to "test". THAT is your religion guys.....

Once you dismiss scientific tests as you have and replace the reasoning with your opinions, you are no longer a scientist or even a healthy skeptic. You are religious, inserting your "belief" instead of asking questions.

Ever heard of the null hypothesis? When presented with a fantastical or at least a questionable claim based upon a single account in a two thousand year old book without even the benefit of a complimentary account in one of the other three books that allegedly follow a semi-mythical person's life, the scientific approach is to assume the truth of the account? Doing anything else is dogmatic and religious?

[GostHacked]

Just like the dogmatists. Jump into ad hominem instead of going back to "test". THAT is your religion guys.....

Once you dismiss scientific tests as you have and replace the reasoning with your opinions, you are no longer a scientist or even a healthy skeptic. You are religious, inserting your "belief" instead of asking questions.

I have not seen you throw in one shred of evidence either. My belief is neither of you understand the scientific method. That has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Edited November 25, 2009 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

Once you dismiss scientific tests as you have and replace the reasoning with your opinions, you are no longer a scientist or even a healthy skeptic. You are religious, inserting your "belief" instead of asking questions.

Bingo. You win the round.

Or, as Claude Levi-Strauss would say, "The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he is one who asks the right questions." Pfff, who is this Levi-Strauss guy anyways?

It is spectacular how far these two will leap to break the beaker before the burner is lit. But keep them away from the specimen jars!

Edited November 25, 2009 by Shwa

[M.Dancer]

Bingo. You win the round.

Or, as Claude Levi-Strauss would say, "The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he is one who asks the right questions." Pfff, who is this Levi-Strauss guy anyways.

It is spectacular how far these two will leap to break the beaker before the burner is lit. But keep them away from the specimen jars!

Benny?

[ToadBrother]

Bingo. You win the round.

Or, as Claude Levi-Strauss would say, "The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he is one who asks the right questions." Pfff, who is this Levi-Strauss guy anyways?

It is spectacular how far these two will leap to break the beaker before the burner is lit. But keep them away from the specimen jars!

Why is it that you avoid ever actually dealing with the scientific method in this conversation. You spend half your time on red herrings like the above, and the other half the time writing multiple "lol"s.

YOu have no idea how science works. Worse, you have no idea how historical studies work. The Gospels have been under the looking glass for a couple of centuries now. We have a damned good idea of when they were written, which ones were based off the others, and the Gospel of John is the latest of them, far more removed from any of the alleged events than the other. The Lazarus story is not in the other gospels, so even if we were to give more benefit of the doubt to the Bible than I think it deserves, it still raises the question as to why this particular story only shows up then.

But apart from any kind of analysis in that record, I still want you to give me one solid reason why I should think any of the claims about Jesus in the Gospel, beyond his being a preacher from Nazareth who had a bit of a following, should be simply accepted? Will you answer the question, or continue in this ludicrous exercise in patting your own back, mocking your opponents and saying absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever? I'd like to know, because I'd hate to be contributing to the heat death of the Universe by increasing entropy through pointless back-and-forths with you.

[Shwa]

OK ToadBrother, here is your dilemma: why ask a question when you are convinced that not only will the respondant not be able to comprehend an answer, but he will likely not even understand the question in the first place?

You have clearly stated - and this has been amply backed up by GH & Morris - that I "have no idea how science works" and that, further still, I "have no idea how historical studies work?" And then, in an even curiouser turn, you wish to avoid "pointless back-and-forths" with me. Don't you find this whole line of questioning in your post below a bit odd considering?

Are you able to step back from your "position" and examine your dilemma from a point of view that is as objective as possible?

Here is the link to the wiki on Structural Anthroplogy from which I take the following quote from Claude Levi-Strauss:

Only those who practice structural analysis are made aware by their daily work of what they are actually trying to do: that is, to reunite perspectives which the narrow scientific outlook of the last centuries has for too long believed to be mutually exclusive: sensibility and intellect, quality and quantity, the concrete and the geometrical, or as we say today, the "etic" and the "emic." [1972]

Meanings of "etic" and "emic"

Now, postmodern objections aside, structural analysis is useful to reveal evidence in an enquiry into aspects of the cultures we are studying. It will not provide an end, but it may provide a means. And any attempt at analysing any cultural aspects within a coherent and objective framework is a worthy start.

So I can tell you, I have no stake or interest in the outcomes of any enquiry into the fragments of a culture whether that is Sumerian, early European or modern Inuit. I am not afraid of the conclusions because I do not know what the conclusions may be outside of any hypothesis I may devise. And besides, who am I to judge?

So my dilemma is this: why bother asking questions when the respondent is not likely to comprehend an answer and might not understand the question in the first place? Do you understand where I am coming from?

3 times already I have used the phrase 'moving on' and for some reason you want to keep at it even though you have come to the conclusion that I have "no idea" about science or historical analysis. And 3 times I have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Eventually we both must conclude that some arbitrary line has to be drawn as to the usefulness of continuing the enquiry along these lines and, since I am a baseball fan, I say three strikes and you are out.

Do you understand how I have responded to my dilemma now?

[ToadBrother]

OK ToadBrother, here is your dilemma: why ask a question when you are convinced that not only will the respondant not be able to comprehend an answer, but he will likely not even understand the question in the first place?

You have clearly stated - and this has been amply backed up by GH & Morris - that I "have no idea how science works" and that, further still, I "have no idea how historical studies work?" And then, in an even curiouser turn, you wish to avoid "pointless back-and-forths" with me. Don't you find this whole line of questioning in your post below a bit odd considering?

Are you able to step back from your "position" and examine your dilemma from a point of view that is as objective as possible?

Here is the link to the wiki on Structural Anthroplogy from which I take the following quote from Claude Levi-Strauss:

Meanings of "etic" and "emic"

Now, postmodern objections aside, structural analysis is useful to reveal evidence in an enquiry into aspects of the cultures we are studying. It will not provide an end, but it may provide a means. And any attempt at analysing any cultural aspects within a coherent and objective framework is a worthy start.

So I can tell you, I have no stake or interest in the outcomes of any enquiry into the fragments of a culture whether that is Sumerian, early European or modern Inuit. I am not afraid of the conclusions because I do not know what the conclusions may be outside of any hypothesis I may devise. And besides, who am I to judge?

So my dilemma is this: why bother asking questions when the respondent is not likely to comprehend an answer and might not understand the question in the first place? Do you understand where I am coming from?

3 times already I have used the phrase 'moving on' and for some reason you want to keep at it even though you have come to the conclusion that I have "no idea" about science or historical analysis. And 3 times I have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Eventually we both must conclude that some arbitrary line has to be drawn as to the usefulness of continuing the enquiry along these lines and, since I am a baseball fan, I say three strikes and you are out.

Do you understand how I have responded to my dilemma now?

Translation: I have typed a significant amount of verbiage, but cannot answer a single request of my interlocutors.

There's a word for the above word salad; it's called obfuscation. You seem to think we're mentally handicapped or something, and will be blown away by the intensity of it all. But as a veteran of such hallowed venues as talk.origins, I know someone who is talking out their ass, and you sir, are talking out your ass.

Being that I'm utterly and totally vain and arrogant, all I can say now is "I Win!"

[charter.rights]

Nah. Toadbrother clearly doe NOT understand. He sees curious inquiry as "obfuscation". He sees his opinion as science, and cannot route out his own bias in approaching the question "what if".

Shwa, you really are wasting your time with this bunch. There are others who are capable of entering into such honest discussion, but when these guys come out of the wood work, they are more interested in red herrings, ad hominem and other fallacy arguments then they are in finding out other "possibilities" Such revelations would threaten their belief system, and so they dogmatically deny they are part of the religion of pseudo-science and not scientific at all.

[charter.rights]

I have not seen you throw in one shred of evidence either. My belief is neither of you understand the scientific method. That has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Maybe you need to go back through the thread, 'cause I am up at least 2 points above any of your efforts. At this point in discussing hypothesis, evidence is not needed because we are simply looking at the reports (the events) and attempting to form some questions about it. Once we think we have enough questions then we move on to find evidence that the hypothesis might have merit.

You and the other "under the bridge gang" want to go from hypothesis to conclusion without doing the work. But he stuff in between is really irrelevant to you, isn't it....You are here to exert your belief, and not at all interested in testing it.

Edited November 25, 2009 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

Nah. Toadbrother clearly doe NOT understand. He sees curious inquiry as "obfuscation". He sees his opinion as science, and cannot route out his own bias in approaching the question "what if".

Shwa, you really are wasting your time with this bunch. There are others who are capable of entering into such honest discussion, but when these guys come out of the wood work, they are more interested in red herrings, ad hominem and other fallacy arguments then they are in finding out other "possibilities" Such revelations would threaten their belief system, and so they dogmatically deny they are part of the religion of pseudo-science and not scientific at all.

Oh I see your point for sure. I just felt it was more honest to provide a little insight so that he could move on because with the three times previous he simply wasn't taking the clue. I am not sure if that is about dogmatic denials, douchebaggery or plain old slow-wittedness, but I suspect the latter.