The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[GostHacked]

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".

What if you are both completely wrong?

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.

Like many to come and go befor you and Shwa, there will be many more. Me, along with M.Dancer, DogonPorch, WIP, Bonam, Sir Bandelot, Borg and ToadBrother (just to name a few) will still be around to do this all over again. It's a pattern we have seen, and the pattern is in how most bible/creationist/faith/religion supporters come on say something without any backing it up claiming it was science and POOF they dissapear.

Check this thread and all the other creation/evolution and science/bible threads. M.Dancer and I have seen many of you come and go in the same fashion as you and Shwa. It's obvious to a point where it is predictable with measure.

This thread was started off as IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED .. blah blah blah. Betsy no longer posts on this board.

One interesting post was this

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means. (Shaw)

Betsy had to run away with the her tail between her legs.

Evolution vrs creationism

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14625

Lily talked about having used reason for her faith in her religion. But then though I was not genuine in my questioning. Scurried away with the response saying I had no interest in conversing with her on that matter. Kind of like how you and Shwa are going about this.

Evolution vrs creationism.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14178

Betsy even tried another angle because her initial premise was flawed.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14051

Read up on those threads then come back to us. And we can try again. You both have shown one step of science I will admit, and that is redefining your hypothesis because of conflicting evidence.

ToadBrother

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

I'd say: WE win... again!

[GostHacked]

Here is some more homework for Charter and Shwa

Canadians divided over creation and evolution - jdobbin was the OP.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14060

Darwin

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14060

This is here to mearly show the consistant pattern that fails the creationists and faith beleivers. This consistant pattern always seems to fail them.

[charter.rights]

What if you are both completely wrong?

Like many to come and go befor you and Shwa, there will be many more. Me, along with M.Dancer, DogonPorch, WIP, Bonam, Sir Bandelot, Borg and ToadBrother (just to name a few) will still be around to do this all over again. It's a pattern we have seen, and the pattern is in how most bible/creationist/faith/religion supporters come on say something without any backing it up claiming it was science and POOF they dissapear.

Check this thread and all the other creation/evolution and science/bible threads. M.Dancer and I have seen many of you come and go in the same fashion as you and Shwa. It's obvious to a point where it is predictable with measure.

This thread was started off as IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED .. blah blah blah. Betsy no longer posts on this board.

One interesting post was this

Betsy had to run away with the her tail between her legs.

Evolution vrs creationism

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14625

Lily talked about having used reason for her faith in her religion. But then though I was not genuine in my questioning. Scurried away with the response saying I had no interest in conversing with her on that matter. Kind of like how you and Shwa are going about this.

Evolution vrs creationism.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14178

Betsy even tried another angle because her initial premise was flawed.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14051

Read up on those threads then come back to us. And we can try again. You both have shown one step of science I will admit, and that is redefining your hypothesis because of conflicting evidence.

ToadBrother

I'd say: WE win... again!

So your admission is that you are really on this thread to troll and bully those who would challenge your dogma?

Edited November 25, 2009 by charter.rights

[ToadBrother]

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".

Serious inquiry into what? An alleged resurrection from a 1,900 year old story that can't even be found in the other Gospels?

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.

Read his posts. He's the one throwing ad hominems around and neither he nor you has shown that you understand anything about science.

[ToadBrother]

So your admission is that you are really on this thread to troll and bully those who would challenge your dogma?

I'm in this thread to debate. That I win the debate because the other side has, when you take all the crapola off of it, nothing at all, is not my fault. Want to win, then post something of substance. As substanceless as Shwa has been, you're even more one dimensional. Other than heckling, I have yet to see you post anything that even remotely looks like an evidentiary-based argument.

[GostHacked]

So your admission is that you are really on this thread to troll and bully those who would challenge your dogma?

My admission is that people like you have come and gone. Simply because they have no clue as to what they are talking about.

It's like long division. Show your work.

[Shwa]

So your admission is that you are really on this thread to troll and bully those who would challenge your dogma?

Wow, they do go on and on don't they? The Internet's equivalent to righteous barking.

They sound like creationists to me because they "win" without having fought a lick; call it a "debate" but postulate nothing; and lack the skills and intellectual maturity to proceed with careful scientific enquiry. Creationists have a simple telltale trait: they call you a fool then demand you answer a question. Did you notice that I caught (He licked the)ToadBrother at it? When I pointed it out, he/she called it "obfuscation" and completely ignored the irony of the point. Heck. I don't even think he/she even got the point in the first place!

Classic example of the kind of "debating" tactics the creationists use. The only thing you're going to get here C.R is more shrilly barking.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Shwa

[M.Dancer]

And with that he lost his credibility and self respect....

[charter.rights]

And with that he lost his credibility and self respect....

Losing respect to the "under the bridge" gang wouldn't even register with Mr. Rogers.

As far as your credibility goes, I've seen more credibility in Satans Choice. And you act just like them too.

Edited November 26, 2009 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

I've seen more credibility in Satans Choice. And you act just like them too.

Nice linear juxtaposition there. No illogical but not much sense either...

....just curious, the next time you get called on your nutbar claims than indians evolved in the americas and that there are 80,000 year old settlements here are you going to adopt Shwa's nonsense style or are you going to come up with wholey original nonsense?

[ToadBrother]

Wow, they do go on and on don't they? The Internet's equivalent to righteous barking.

They sound like creationists to me because they "win" without having fought a lick; call it a "debate" but postulate nothing; and lack the skills and intellectual maturity to proceed with careful scientific enquiry. Creationists have a simple telltale trait: they call you a fool then demand you answer a question. Did you notice that I caught (He licked the)ToadBrother at it? When I pointed it out, he/she called it "obfuscation" and completely ignored the irony of the point. Heck. I don't even think he/she even got the point in the first place!

Classic example of the kind of "debating" tactics the creationists use. The only thing you're going to get here C.R is more shrilly barking.

Yes, demanding that a question be answered is such a vile debating tactic.

You're beaten. Give it up. You know you didn't have anything going in, you knew it all along, but somehow you think you can retain some self-respect if you just keep flogging the dead horse.

You don't have an actual evidence that Lazarus existed beyond the Gospel of John. Period. And even that is at best the most extremely iffy evidence when you consider what's required for a historian to move anything beyond the "maybe it might have happened category."

I have no idea where you learned how historical analysis worked (and that isn't actually a science, by the way, save that it uses some related kinds of methodological practices). We long ago abandoned assuming our conclusions in that sort of thing, which is why while we may have, for instance, confirmed that the city of Troy existed, or at least a city that most certainly relates to Homer's story, that doesn't mean that Achilles and Jason and Paris and so forth all were historical figures. To confirm that they were, one would need reasonably contemporary accounts (all but impossible, considering that the most likely candidate for the Trojan War, Troy VII, fell during the Greek Dark Ages).

The textual history of the Gospels causes all sorts of problems for them being used as historical documents. The Lazarus story comes from the last of the Gospels to be written, and that makes it doubly troublesome. At any rate, outside of the Gospels, the only real contemporary account of Jesus's existence (let alone all the fantastical stories about him) comes from Josephus, who, when you shed off all the later "additions" by anonymous Christian writers trying to bolster their case, you get some basic facts; that he was from Nazareth, that he was a preacher, that he had followers, and that the Romans executed him. That's enough for most historians to accept the bare bones of the story, but not enough to peg any of the specific events that happened during the Ministry, and certainly utterly inadequate to even begin to discuss the events surrounding Lazarus.

If you have some new information, I'm sure that just about every Biblical scholar out there is going to be falling over himself to get to you. But you don't. So please, spare all the righteous indignation.

[M.Dancer]

Not sure cause he ain't an exactly to the point poster, but I think he believes that it ain't important if the miracles of Jesus are true or not....

Now if that is his point I may tend to agree in so much as for those

who believe (with perfect faith), proof one way or another will have no relevence...the quest for proof consitutes a real challenge to faith...which is the problem I have with crationists and creation scientists; that if they had any faith worth speaking about they wouldn't have to be so intellectually dishonest about fudging data and desparately trying to validate their puny faith...

That being said, I'm not a believer. If it ain't real, it ain't shit. It has the moral relevance of a Harry Potter novel.

[Shwa]

charter.rights - are you familiar with the old Iroquoian story of The Three Sisters?

Roughly:

The three sisters are Maize (Corn), Beans and Squash. The Three Sisters used to be planted together in ancient Iroquois gardens. They were three very close sisters that depended on each other. As Sister Maize grew tall with her stalk, Sister Beans would climb the stalks and leaves while Sister Squash would wind her vines around the stalks. Sister Maize kept Sisters Beans and Squash shaded from the harsh summer sun, while Sister Squash helped keep the ground cool and damp. Sister Beans also helped keep the choking weeds at bay.

One day a farmer came along and broke up the little Three Sisters garden. He moved Sister Beans and Sister Squash to a new gardens of their own. But shortly afterward Sister Maize started to suffer from the dry soil and whither; Sister Beans had no place to grow, so she wound wildly on the ground and started to grow moldy. Sister Squash became dried out in the harsh summer sun and also withered.

After a few days, the farmer noticed he made a big mistake because his crops were dying so he reunited Sister Beans and Sister Squash with Sister Maize to form the Three Sisters garden again. Once again the Three Sisters thrived. The message of the story is to plant - and eat - Maize, Beans and Squash together because they need each other like all good sisters.

Now, this is a pretty rough rendition of what is likely a very ancient indigenous story that has been passed down through oral tradition for thousands of years into modern times. It must have been a pretty important story to be preserved all those years.

Now, do you think that it is possible that the content of this story can also be true from a scientific perspective?

[charter.rights]

Three sisters?

My native friends talked about it but it was only in the context of a child's fable. I don't know if we could prove anything from it, though.

Do you have any ideas?

[charter.rights]

Now I did a bit of Googling and found the following quite interesting...

As a matter of fact, there probably would be no food and, as a result, no people in all of the Americas if not for the three sisters. Because they were immeasurably important to the Native Americans, the three sisters--also know as the Indian Triad--were given the name Dyonheyko, meaning, "Ones that sustain our lives." They provided complete nutrition for the Native Americans, and these three ingredients are much more beneficial when cooked and eaten together rather than individually: they allow the body to manufacture complete proteins and eliminate the need for meat in the diet. In addition, when grown together, they produce a higher yield on smaller plots of land and need less water and fertilizer.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAW/is_70/ai_109580398/

It also looks like the "three sisters" might have been our first introduction into companion planting....so the part of the story that each plant plays a role in the growth of the other, seems to have some merit....

The ancient Native American technique of growing Corn, Beans, and Squash together in an arrangement called the Three Sisters is the ultimate in companion planting and helps increase harvests, naturally!

Corn acts as a support for climbing bean vines, the beans fix nitrogen in the soil for the high feeding requirements of corn and squash, and the squash provides mulch and root protection for the corn and beans! After cooperating beautifully in the garden, corn and beans form a complete protein when eaten together! How's that for a mutually beneficial relationship?

How's that for a start?

[Shwa]

"How's that for a start?"

That isn't a start, more like an end! But we need to show our work right?

So here we have an old Iroquoian story that is subject to a mild form of anthropomorphization of three staple foods - maize, beans and squash. The legend - as above - has likely been heavily modified since it's original creation. There might be the possibility of data loss in the telling and re-telling over the millennia. We do not know of the originating culture of this story and there doesn't appear to be any original documentation corroborating it's creation other than the recording of it by an early American ethnologist.

Would you agree the above summary is accurate and, if not, what other descriptive elements would you add?

[M.Dancer]

Do you know the story of why the native chap won't eat Sushi?

[GostHacked]

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?

When we don't understand, you need to try a different approach. Or refine your statement. You had to do that once already, which you admited.

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?

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

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

I find your approach odd.

You wanted to reconclie the difference between science and the bible. How can the eyewitness really have seen what he thought he saw. When it comes down to it: Did the person really witness a ressurection? Because you have a bible story about it, and science has not been able to ressurect anyone. Don't get this mixed up with being dead on the doctors table for a couple mins or so. You offered 6 probabilities, and you poo poo'd the other possibilities when me and Dancer suggested them. Open minds and open scientists would have thought about it, and then possible reject the claims.

Wether you like it or not, your whole question can be validated by someone actually performing a ressurection. You don't seem to understand that this is the underlying question that you can't seem to ask. You know that science can't test miracles or the supernatural. So why are you even trying?

YOur hypothesis was more of a question instead of a statement. Which you need to have a statement for a hypothesis. Your question will not do for a hypothesis because there is no proposition.

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

We have. But you have not.

wiki on Structural Anthroplogy[/url] from which I take the following quote from Claude Levi-Strauss:

From your link it is based on Haeel's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel Turns out he is a philosopher, and as I said, I'd leave these kinds of questions to philosophers.

Hegel published only four books during his life: the Phenomenology of Spirit (or Phenomenology of Mind), his account of the evolution of consciousness from sense-perception to absolute knowledge, published in 1807; the Science of Logic, the logical and metaphysical core of his philosophy, in three volumes, published in 1811, 1812, and 1816 (revised 1831); Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, a summary of his entire philosophical system, which was originally published in 1816 and revised in 1827 and 1830; and the Elements of the Philosophy of Right, his political philosophy, published in 1822. In the latter, he criticized von Haller's reactionary work, which claimed that laws were not necessary. He also published some articles early in his career and during his Berlin period. A number of other works on the philosophy of history, religion, aesthetics, and the history of philosophy were compiled from the lecture notes of his students and published posthumously.

He is not dealing with the physical world. He is dealing with the spirit. He is a philosopher. That is all. Philosophers are not scientists!!!

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

Although most practitioners are philosophers, several prominent scientists have contributed to the field and still do. Other prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited: “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman[citation needed].

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?

Well you certainly judged me and M.Dancer.

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?

Refine your question.

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.

And you still are comming back for more.

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.

My interpretation of this is: I don't want to hear anymore.

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

No, we are still at square one. You spent the last couple pages trying to prove that your method is right without actually doing your method. You have provided no evidence or testing parameters to come to a conclusion. You fail here on so many levels.

I understand the angel of anthropology, even your narrow aspect of anthropology. Now how can we use archeology to find evidence to support what you think is a hypothesis? Because we should be able to use other fields of science to coroborate your hypothesis. You just wanted to prove that the account would be true and accurate to the viewer. But when we challanged it, you said the accuracy is not even needed to support the claim. Charter.Rights THIS is a cop out.

You are not doing any science by making a claim without wanting to do any work yourself. You simply want us to do it, and then pull a 'GOTCHA !!!!' Won't work here. And that is not how science works. You propose the hypothesis, you provide the evidence, and you provide testing environments where I can replicate the results. If you don't understant this, you never will.

[GostHacked]

"How's that for a start?"

That isn't a start, more like an end! But we need to show our work right?

So here we have an old Iroquoian story that is subject to a mild form of anthropomorphization of three staple foods - maize, beans and squash. The legend - as above - has likely been heavily modified since it's original creation. There might be the possibility of data loss in the telling and re-telling over the millennia. We do not know of the originating culture of this story and there doesn't appear to be any original documentation corroborating it's creation other than the recording of it by an early American ethnologist.

Would you agree the above summary is accurate and, if not, what other descriptive elements would you add?

Sure, it is accurate. They don't know.

[charter.rights]

"How's that for a start?"

That isn't a start, more like an end! But we need to show our work right?

So here we have an old Iroquoian story that is subject to a mild form of anthropomorphization of three staple foods - maize, beans and squash. The legend - as above - has likely been heavily modified since it's original creation. There might be the possibility of data loss in the telling and re-telling over the millennia. We do not know of the originating culture of this story and there doesn't appear to be any original documentation corroborating it's creation other than the recording of it by an early American ethnologist.

Would you agree the above summary is accurate and, if not, what other descriptive elements would you add?

I would agree that the summary observations are an accurate (if not general account).

[Shwa]

I would agree that the summary observations are an accurate (if not general account).

OK, so what I would like to do is break the story down into its elements. I am trying to list these elements in the order as they appear in the story keeping in mind that the story is in English and that there might have been data loss through translation, etc.

Have a look at the elements and we can discuss anything that should or should not be listed, or could be listed elsewhere or requires a separate category. The idea - if possible - is to list the story elements singly so that it appears only once. Also, can you discern any patterns when the elements are listed this way?

Characters

Sisters

Maize

Beans

Squash

Farmer

Locations

Ancient Iroquoia

Common Garden

Intermediate Zone

Separate Garden

Actions

planting

growing

climbing

winding

shading

cooling

choking

defending

breaking

moving

suffering

withering

mouldering

drying

noticing

dying

re-uniting

eating

Relationship

family

close

depended

re-uniting

need

broke-up

power

[charter.rights]

Data.

So what questions / hypothesis can be derived from that....?

[Shwa]

Data.

So what questions / hypothesis can be derived from that....?

Take a look at the data. Are any elements missing, should there be additional categories or should elements be in different categories? Also, if you scan the list do you see any patterns or inferences?

[M.Dancer]

Actions

planting

growing

climbing

winding

shading

cooling

choking

defending

breaking

moving

suffering

withering

mouldering

drying

noticing

dying

re-uniting

eating

You forgot pooping

[GostHacked]

You forgot pooping

Damn, fell off my chair again. Anyways, let's sit back and see what they come up with. This way our bias can't be interjected into their hypothesis making.

Edited November 26, 2009 by GostHacked