GostHacked Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Depends on the brain power you are born with - IF you are intelligent enough you will see the logic and science in the super extended natural realm...If you are a bit on the dull and spiteful arrogant side - and lacking that little bit of extra intellectual capacity...You will NOT see the logic held in spirt - MR. Spock is a fictional character by the way. So is this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Spirituality is not logical, Mr. Spock And neither am I... You see, we are humans, we don't thrive purely on logic. We have needs and emotions that transcend mere scientific inquiry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 And neither am I... You see, we are humans, we don't thrive purely on logic. We have needs and emotions that transcend mere scientific inquiry. While I agree that humans don't thrive purely on logic, I disagree that any thing that exists in the Universe is exempt from scientific examination including "needs and emotions." Let's not confuse scientific inquiry with scientific explanation. Anything observable is fair game for science, however science may not be able to satisfactorily explain all phenomena observed. Interestingly enough, need and emotion play a very big part in scientific enquiry, as does intuition. And emotions, are they not simply a neurochemical recipe being fired off as an automatic response to a stimulus? A little dopamine, a pinch of norepinephrine and a dash of phenylethylamine and hey! it's love... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 While I agree that humans don't thrive purely on logic, I disagree that any thing that exists in the Universe is exempt from scientific examination including "needs and emotions." Let's not confuse scientific inquiry with scientific explanation. Anything observable is fair game for science, however science may not be able to satisfactorily explain all phenomena observed. Interestingly enough, need and emotion play a very big part in scientific enquiry, as does intuition. And emotions, are they not simply a neurochemical recipe being fired off as an automatic response to a stimulus? A little dopamine, a pinch of norepinephrine and a dash of phenylethylamine and hey! it's love... So pertaining to your Three Sisters account, is that story found in the bible at all?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 So pertaining to your Three Sisters account, is that story found in the bible at all?? I dunno, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I dunno, is it? Yeah, I knew you could not do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Yeah, I knew you could not do it. Do what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I just knew GH couldn't detach himself from his religion long enough to enter a discussion that challenges his beliefs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I just knew GH couldn't detach himself from his religion long enough to enter a discussion that challenges his beliefs..... Well, heres the thing. The thread is about The Bible and Science. Now the challenge was to prove with science that a story or some aspect of the bible was provable through science. It started off with the story of Lazaruz, which ended up 5 pages, without any cohesive thought with regards to making a hypothesis based on the ressurection of Lazarus by Jesus, which did not really matter to you that it was not impossible and in the end he said that accuracy was not that important. Boggles the mind really. Don't get me wrong. Scientifically validating a story like The Three Sisters, is a good idea. and it seems Shwa is on the right path. However, that has nothing to do with the topic and thread at hand. Otherwise, I'd agree with the hypothesis of The Three Sisters story. Don't count me out just yet charter.rights. For I am religionless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Well, heres the thing. The thread is about The Bible and Science. A: One implication is that any cultural artefact can be the subject for scientific enquiry to one degree or another and this includes cultural texts, stories, myths, etc., including the Bible which is nothing more than a compendium of stories and myths structured to transmit cultural imperatives to future generations. I am on topic. Now the challenge was to prove with science that a story or some aspect of the bible was provable through science. No it wasn't: B: Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well? I posed the question. There is nothing in that question that says anything would be proven or that the bible was provable because that would be poor science, if science at all. However, you injected your needy prejudice so I used the story of the Three Sisters to illustrate point (A) above. Boggles the mind really. What "boggles the mind" is how sluggish your intellect is "really." I am not here to prove your beliefs or disbeliefs. If you want to claim that the scientific method - or any other method - can be used to prove your disbelief, go ahead, show us your work. Can't? Yeah, I knew you could not do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 (edited) No it wasn't: Yes it was. Go back a few pages and read it again. Here let me help you. You quickly dropped the Lazarus hypothesis and moved on to something else. I posed the question. There is nothing in that question that says anything would be proven or that the bible was provable because that would be poor science, if science at all. However, you injected your needy prejudice so I used the story of the Three Sisters to illustrate point (A) above. No the original hypothesis you proposed or were working on was Lazarus' In case you missed it, this is the quote from your post, which is at the top of page 14. Oh but it does, all the time and moreso in the anthro field than most anywhere else. In fact, science has always dealt with religon and visa versa. And sometimes with not so good results. ------- I think I need to re-state the question/problem so we can bring it up to speed. Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? Yes or no? Please briefly explain. This is where you decided to change your approach, and then ditch it all together for the Three Sisters story. Which has nothing to do with the bible. And yet when I agreed with your hypothesis about the Three Sisters, you still say I am blinded by my 'faith'. What "boggles the mind" is how sluggish your intellect is "really." I am not here to prove your beliefs or disbeliefs. If you want to claim that the scientific method - or any other method - can be used to prove your disbelief, go ahead, show us your work. Proving or disproving my beliefs was not the topic at hand. Never was. Edited December 9, 2009 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Which has nothing to do with the bible. See point (A) from my previous post. Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? See point (A) from my previous post. Really, I think sluggish is the best description. Eventually you'll 'get it' if you think hard enough about it, but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I think I need to re-state the question/problem so we can bring it up to speed. Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? Yes or no? Please briefly explain. Shwa has been pantsed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 See point (A) from my previous post. The quote I posted of yours supersedes this Point A you proposed. Really, I think sluggish is the best description. Eventually you'll 'get it' if you think hard enough about it, but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath. So be honest. Why did you move away from this bit? Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 The quote I posted of yours supersedes this Point A you proposed. Nope. Carefully read point (A). So be honest. Why did you move away from this bit? So you could get some insight into the method that would be divorced from your apparent overriding anti-bible/religion bias/polemic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Shwa has been pantsed Right. "pantsed" Uh-huh. Good one. The chinstrap is loose on your hockey helmet there big fella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Nope. Carefully read point (A). Point A is irrelevant to the original proposed hypothesis. So you could get some insight into the method that would be divorced from your apparent overriding anti-bible/religion bias/polemic. That is not my problem you can't work in the confines of your originally proposed scientific hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Right. "pantsed" Uh-huh. Good one. The chinstrap is loose on your hockey helmet there big fella. Chin Strap -hockey helmet....that's a good one considering your pants are around you ankles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 One more time... Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? Yes or no? Please briefly explain. The answer is no. To my knowledge it has never been recreated in the lab, except by Dr. Frankenstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 One more time... The answer is no. To my knowledge it has never been recreated in the lab, except by Dr. Frankenstein So let me guess: you have never heard of anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, etc. Or you're just an idiot. Gathering from your recent postings there is more evidence for the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Point A is irrelevant to the original proposed hypothesis. That is not my problem you can't work in the confines of your originally proposed scientific hypothesis. Point (A) is completely relevant to the questions posed, method and original hypothesis as demonstrated by the use of the Three Sisters. Fairly straight forward too. If you fail to comprehend that, well, that's not my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Point (A) is completely relevant to the questions posed, method and original hypothesis as demonstrated by the use of the Three Sisters. Fairly straight forward too. If you fail to comprehend that, well, that's not my problem. Fine, now apply that science to something in the Bible, which was your original hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 So let me guess: you have never heard of anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, etc. Or you're just an idiot. Gathering from your recent postings there is more evidence for the latter. Gathering from your posts, you have as much honesty as a 3 card monte dealer. Not my fault if you are too full of yourself to face the facts... I think you can be summed up with this: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. You might want to use psychology to find a scientific explanation for your pathetic dishonesty. But heck: Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? Give it another shot, there's no quota here for looking like a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 So let me guess: you have never heard of anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, etc. Or you're just an idiot. Gathering from your recent postings there is more evidence for the latter. From an archaeological perspective, please elaborate Lazarus...specifically the archaeological facts surrounding the true to life coming back from the dead. I'm sure an idiot can do it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 From an archaeological perspective, please elaborate Lazarus...specifically the archaeological facts surrounding the true to life coming back from the dead. I'm sure an idiot can do it.. OMG, how stupid are you? Stupid or drunk or both? Have another one Mr. Hockey Helmet you're actually entertaining in a sort of tragic foot-meets-banana-peel way . Please, do go on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.