Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Investigation of Biblical science errors
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 138 (116947)
06-20-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by bob_gray
06-18-2004 11:33 PM


Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
bob_gray98 writes:
This is not compelling evidence that the writers of the bible had sufficient knowledge to distinguish between a star and an asteroid.
DarkStar writes:
What then? Is it as though your opinion on what knowldege the writers did or did not have is sufficient to end discussion? No need for further debate because bob knows the mind of ancient writers! Yeah, right! Talk about strawman peppered with ad hominem. While others may view your arguments as having genuine verisimilitude, the thrust of your antipodean stance regarding your personal opinion versus the reality of the writers thoughts, whatever they may have been, leaves you with very little credibility in my opinion.
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by bob_gray, posted 06-18-2004 11:33 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by bob_gray, posted 06-20-2004 11:51 PM DarkStar has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 92 of 138 (116954)
06-20-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by DarkStar
06-20-2004 11:26 PM


Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
quote:
Talk about strawman peppered with ad hominem.
If I used either of these logical fallacies then I will apologize as soon as you quote the places where I used them.
In the interim let me see if I can restate your argument that the writers of the bible, although they wrote "star", really meant "asteroid". Correct me where I am mistaken.
Begin argument
"Star" and "asteroid" have the same Greek root "Aster" meaning "star like".
End argument
So what you are saying is that, "No need for further debate because DarkStar knows the mind of ancient writers!"
It would appear that we are at an impasse. (Although personally I find my argument far more compelling. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DarkStar, posted 06-20-2004 11:26 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 12:50 AM bob_gray has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 138 (116970)
06-21-2004 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
06-20-2004 7:20 AM


Re: Keeping it honest
holmes writes: This is in the Bible in order to express God's laws!
DarkStar writes:
Even I, as one who has already admitted to having read very little of the bible, am able to distunguish between the law of god and the law of moses. No points for you here.
holmes writes:
Your only out is if you are about to admit that humans wrote the Bible and so some if not all of it may have no bearing on God's wisdom or wishes.
Hmmm, let's see now. Did humans write the bible or not? Your hebetudinous behaviour regarding this matter amazes me. Ok, on to the second part.
holmes writes:
Some, if not all of the bible having no bearing on god's wisdom or wishes.
Your stuporous frame of mind is beyond understanding. The fatuous nature of your thinking causes me to question whether logostic reason escapes you or is it more likely that your method of processing thoughts into words is merely the result of your educational background?
holmes writes:
Damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one.
One could easily surmise that continued interlocution with individuals such as yourself would precipitate exactly that type of unavailing scenario.
Contumeliously Vituperative Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 06-20-2004 7:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 1:05 AM DarkStar has replied
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 06-22-2004 7:09 PM DarkStar has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 138 (116978)
06-21-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by bob_gray
06-20-2004 11:51 PM


Neo-evolutionary thinking?
bob writes:
In the interim let me see if I can restate your argument that the writers of the bible, although they wrote "star", really meant "asteroid". Correct me where I am mistaken.
Actually, they did not write "star", they wrote "aster" seeing as how they wrote in greek and not english. The greek word for star is "astron" so I would bet that if they meant star and not asteroid they would have used "astron". Consider yourself corrected. One could hardly consider the individuals during the Greco-Roman time period to be as archaic in their cogitative evaluations as you would have us believe they were, as if, according to your inferences, they were only slightly above neanderthals in intelligence and comprehension.
This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-20-2004 11:59 PM

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by bob_gray, posted 06-20-2004 11:51 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by bob_gray, posted 06-21-2004 11:09 AM DarkStar has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 95 of 138 (116989)
06-21-2004 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 12:33 AM


Keep it polite
Darkstar, you have a habit of getting a bit nasty and of not dealing with the meat of others posts.
Clean it up, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 12:33 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 3:00 PM AdminNosy has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 96 of 138 (117010)
06-21-2004 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by DarkStar
06-20-2004 10:55 PM


Re: Sidelined Unconvinced of his Strawman Argument but a Rose by Any Other Name..........
DarkStar
sidelined writes:
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
This part "shall not cause her light to shine" is an insight into the way these people interpreted their observations.It is one of many examples of incorreect evaluation of observation.
DarkStar writes:
With this line of extremely flawed reasoning and illogical thinking, I gather you also contend that they considered the sun male and the moon female. Talk about your ad hominem arguments. Exactly how did you determine their actual frame of mind? On what base of information do you support this belief?
Again we have the accusation. Please good sir, point out the flawed reasoning and illogical thinking.Where did I say I had determined their state of mind since I cannot know that right? So we must go with what is written and what they wrote is consistent with a non-scientific point of view.Where do you get the idea to gather that I contend anything about their application of gender to the sun and moon from what I wrote down? Do you even know what an ad hominem attack is?
sidelined writes:
Science operates on that which it can test.....
DarkStar writes:
The following link has an interesting bit of information.....
http://www.geocities.com/lewiston_stargazer/evidence.html
These charts show explicit informational evidence, and the lack thereof, regarding the Steady State & Big Bang theories.
An obvious tongue-in-cheek display, this is nevertheless a semi-clear example of what such a chart may look like if proponents of each theory were required to proffer examples of known evidence for the opposing viewpoint. Though facetious in nature, it does signify the antipodean nature of differing points of view and therefore gives us great insight as to the antonymic reality of evolution vs intelligent design.
Well being as I cannot get the page to fully load beyond the title and column headings of evidence for and evidence against steady state and big bang I do not have anything to go on. Do you suppose you could explain how this great insight is achieved with evidence rather than your say so? Show us the beef my good man. You consistently make these assertions and then leave us hanging. I for one would appreciate you making your arguement by showing us how you arrive at your conclusions.
sidelined writes:
So with the general theory of relativity new understandings of gravity came into focus and we gained a huge insight into many of the workings of the universe. The fact that light can be bent by the presence of a large mass such as a star allows us to extrapolate and predict things such as gravitational lensing and the distribution of galaxies as well as the shape that they assume.We then look and find that the theories prediction are later confirmed by observation.
Of course there are gaps in our understanding of the universe and this is to be expected in something as enormous and intricate and subtle as the universe is proving itself to be.The beauty of it is that in investigating we find that the universe exceeds our expectations in that every answer we recieve to a penetrating question unfolds a whole new series of questions that we did not imagine were even there.
DarkStar writes:
And this line of reasoning is exactly what I am referring to when I state that neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of intelligent design has adequately explained the existance of all living things. When considering the history of science, what we once knew to be fully true is now untrue as new discoveries bring new truths
Who ever said that science ever arrived at full truth? To the contrary we find that it is a dynamical quest where our models are forged by observation and redesigned as new information comes about.
Certainty is not what science thrives on but on doubt.Nevertheless we do have a framework that allows us to go forth and test our assumptions.Inteligent design does not even properly define what the hell it is about much less make a testable model.That evolution is a fact is not in contention but the mechanisms by which the observed evidence came to be is juggled around and sometimes we observe things that do not make sense until further evidence is forthcoming.
What should be forthcoming from you,sir,is exactly what it is that you disagree with in the models.Please do us a favour and explain yourself sir as mind reading is not within my grasp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by DarkStar, posted 06-20-2004 10:55 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 8:40 PM sidelined has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 97 of 138 (117086)
06-21-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 12:50 AM


Re: Neo-evolutionary thinking?
quote:
Actually, they did not write "star", they wrote "aster" seeing as how they wrote in greek and not english. The greek word for star is "astron" so I would bet that if they meant star and not asteroid they would have used "astron". Consider yourself corrected.
Fair enough (although this was not your original argument). I don't have the original Greek with me and it would be useless even if I did since I can't read Greek. Perhaps you can answer this question since you apparently read Greek. Can you give an example of where they used the word "astron" as opposed to "aster" in the bible? If they were using two different words why did they all get translated the same? I guess that must have been a failing of the translator.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
quote:
One could hardly consider the individuals during the Greco-Roman time period to be as archaic in their cogitative evaluations as you would have us believe they were, as if, according to your inferences, they were only slightly above neanderthals [sic] in intelligence and comprehension.
I do not consider the ancient people to have been deficient in their cogitative evaluations in any way. In fact I don't think there was any difference in their capacity for knowledge than we have today. What they were lacking was 3000 years of scientific knowledge and records. As an example of their obvious cleverness there were cultures 3000 years ago that had decimal approximations for the square root of two accurate to 12 places. Of course they weren't using a decimal system they were using a base 16 system of numbers and I don't think they had zero yet. I think you extended my belief that they didn't understand the "falling stars" weren't stars at all with their inability to form coherent thought. They probably didn’t know about gamma radiation either but that doesn’t make them stupid. Do you misinterpret things people write because you are looking for a fight or do you really have reading comprehension issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 12:50 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 3:10 PM bob_gray has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 138 (117172)
06-21-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by AdminNosy
06-21-2004 1:05 AM


Re: Keep it polite
AdminNosy writes:
Darkstar, you have a habit of getting a bit nasty and of not dealing with the meat of others posts.
Clean it up, thank you.
DarkStar replies: A most difficult task at times, considering some of the replies I have received which include, but are not limited to, "piss off" and "no shit, sherlock", which I would hardly consider conducive to a non-confrontational exchange of thoughts and ideas.
However, in the interest of fairness, I shall honor your request, even if it means that I must ignore certain individuals and/or posts.
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 1:05 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AdminNosy, posted 06-22-2004 11:54 AM DarkStar has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 138 (117176)
06-21-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by bob_gray
06-21-2004 11:09 AM


Re: Neo-evolutionary thinking?
bob writes:
Do you misinterpret things people write because you are looking for a fight or do you really have reading comprehension issues?
DarkStar replies:
In the interest on honoring a previous response to AdminNosy, I shall ignore this obvious insult to my intelligence and place you on my ignore list until you also clean it up.
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by bob_gray, posted 06-21-2004 11:09 AM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by bob_gray, posted 06-22-2004 10:41 AM DarkStar has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 138 (117301)
06-21-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by sidelined
06-21-2004 2:35 AM


The Dumbing Down of the Masses
For some time now society, as a whole, has experienced the dumbing down of the populace with each succeeding generation. Tasks which were easily performed by earlier generation before the age of twelve appear as unsurmountable tasks for today's generation of students in senior high school and in some rare cases, even into college. Students graduate from high school with little more than the basic knowledge skills of sixth graders of earlier generations. Comprehension skills fare no better. Today, in forums such as this, one is continually subjected to individuals of the kind mentioned above who will vehemently lambaste any individual whose ideas and opinions do not match their own as they make their stand on a scientific field that they little to nothing about personally. If one dares to question what others see as established truths they become targets for ridicule.
"The freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought....If you know you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations."
Richard Feynman "The Meaning of It All" POSH Home Page
sidelined writes:
That evolution is a fact is not in contention but the mechanisms by which the observed evidence came to be is juggled around and sometimes we observe things that do not make sense until further evidence is forthcoming.
The truth is that scientists have very few solid examples of evolution in action where new functions are actually produced. The few examples that they do have seem to show some interesting limits in evolutionary potential. Often such observations are bent, molded or exaggerated to fit some a priori assumptions that do not truly match the observations as well as might be hoped. Surprisingly, even the interpretations of scientists are often colored by philosophy and personal bias. Yes, even among scientists there are those who freely confess that they have a need to believe in evolution that goes beyond any demonstration of fact or the scientific method. This is not too surprising since humans are quite prone to bias. http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/...romscientists.html
I. PRIMARY PROBLEM : Confusion in the use of the term 'evolution'
A. Case 1 - 'Evolution' = minor variations and adaptations
When the term 'evolution' is used in this sense, it refers to small changes within a species, such as finch beak variations and peppered moth adaptations to environmental changes. This process is observable and can be considered scientific fact. The reviewers consider presentation of this material to be appropriate and likely to be fascinating to students - possibly interesting them in careers in scientific research, or in making their own scientific observations of the natural world. The problems we find, with this usage of the term 'evolution', are instances in which scientific evidence for minor changes within a species are reported as evidence for the development of higher taxa from lower, or for major structural innovations requiring new DNA for plausibility.
Examples of Case 1 Problematic Usage:
P. 272, "Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves that evolution has occurred."
(There is a vast amount of evidence that microevolution has occurred, but the evidence for macroevolution has not been accumulated. Good science fobids the use of the term "prove" outside the mathematical deductive proofs. The term "evolution" in the text here should be identified as microevolution for this statement to be accurate.)
P. 291, "Observing that evolution has occurred is relatively simple."
(Observation of microevolution may be simple, but macroevolution has not been observed. In fact, scientists have noticed that species such as bacteria and flies do not evolve into higher order life forms throughout hundreds of thousands of observable generations. This type of statement implies that anyone questioning the proof of macroevolution is ignorant.)
P. 303, "Evolutionary change occurs around us constantly. Scientists today have observed many examples of evolutionary change that have occurred in living organisms."
(Scientists have observed microevolutionary change, and the remainder of the article on this page gives as an example of such change the development of insecticide resistance in insects. This is a valid example of microevolution. The problem with the text is that, once again, the fact that microevolutionary change has been observed is used to imply that 'evolution' is obvious and unquestionable when used interchangeably to convey the concept of micro- or macro- evolution.)
P. 304, The student is directed in the guide for reading to learn from section 14-4 "How do new species develop from existing species?" Examples are given of fish which differentiate into fish with different characteristics, but no examples are given of fish which develop into a higher order life form. In this way, students are led to believe the process of microevolution has resulted in macroevolutionary leaps to entirely new taxa.
P. 308, Figure 14-20 is another example of the above use of observed microevolutionary change to convey or imply the idea that macroevolutionary change is proven. The picture of many species of finch could just as well be used to convey the idea that, after millions of years of adaptive radiation and evolution, these finches are still demonstrably finches despite their variations and, contrary to macroevolutionary expectations, have not become different life forms. This is a good example of editorial bias within the book which extends to all chapters on animal development which assume common descent and macroevolution of all life forms. Biology Text Review
I contend that the following is a possible example of what I referred to earlier. Let the reader be the judge.
sidelined writes:
Science operates on that which it can test.....
DarkStar writes:
The following link has an interesting bit of information.....
http://www.geocities.com/lewiston_stargazer/evidence.html
These charts show explicit informational evidence, and the lack thereof, regarding the Steady State & Big Bang theories.
An obvious tongue-in-cheek display, this is nevertheless a semi-clear example of what such a chart may look like if proponents of each theory were required to proffer examples of known evidence for the opposing viewpoint. Though facetious in nature, it does signify the antipodean nature of differing points of view and therefore gives us great insight as to the antonymic reality of evolution vs intelligent design.
sidelined writes:
Well being as I cannot get the page to fully load beyond the title and column headings of evidence for and evidence against steady state and big bang I do not have anything to go on. Do you suppose you could explain how this great insight is achieved with evidence rather than your say so? Show us the beef my good man. You consistently make these assertions and then leave us hanging. I for one would appreciate you making your arguement by showing us how you arrive at your conclusions.
What I thought would have been obvious even to a younger person I see is not so obvious here. Even after having explained the nature of the charts as I presented them, {a simple click on "back" would have revealed that these were to be filled in by students), and what they may look like if proponents of each theory were required to proffer examples of known evidence for the opposing viewpoint, I must still return to explain that the charts were supposed to be blank, hence my aforementioned tongue-in-cheek humor remark regarding their use as actual charts of verified information. When something this simple must be explained in such repeated detail, the possibility of cultivating meaningful discourse becomes an evanescent probability.
This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-21-2004 11:29 PM

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by sidelined, posted 06-21-2004 2:35 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by sidelined, posted 06-22-2004 9:05 AM DarkStar has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 101 of 138 (117457)
06-22-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 8:40 PM


Re: The Dumbing Down of the Masses
DarkStar
What I thought would have been obvious even to a younger person I see is not so obvious here. Even after having explained the nature of the charts as I presented them, {a simple click on "back" would have revealed that these were to be filled in by students), and what they may look like if proponents of each theory were required to proffer examples of known evidence for the opposing viewpoint, I must still return to explain that the charts were supposed to be blank, hence my aforementioned tongue-in-cheek humor remark regarding their use as actual charts of verified information. When something this simple must be explained in such repeated detail, the possibility of cultivating meaningful discourse becomes an evanescent probability
I do agree that meaningful discourse is certainly futile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 8:40 PM DarkStar has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 102 of 138 (117473)
06-22-2004 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 3:10 PM


Re: Neo-evolutionary thinking?
quote:
DarkStar replies:
In the interest on honoring a previous response to AdminNosy, I shall ignore this obvious insult to my intelligence and place you on my ignore list until you also clean it up.
Cheers

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DarkStar, you just made it to the top of my funniest posters list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 3:10 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 11:58 AM bob_gray has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 103 of 138 (117503)
06-22-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 3:00 PM


Re: Keep it polite
Thank you. We'll see how well others do at responding in kind.
However, I think if we look at these comments carefully you will find they are a sign of some frustration with you lack of response to issues raised.
Things like "no shit, sherlock" are not particulary grevious attacks on you personally but a simple comment on the quality of some particular statement of yours.
You need to understand that, here, we all are only what is posted. It isn't completely fair to judge someone based on so little information but that's the way it is. Your posts have not been particularly enhancing to anyone's opinion of you.
Besides being polite you need to start dealing directly with issues and logic. Respond to what is posted or asked about your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 3:00 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 3:32 PM AdminNosy has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 138 (117507)
06-22-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by bob_gray
06-22-2004 10:41 AM


Re: Neo-evolutionary thinking?
bob_gray98 writes:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DarkStar, you just made it to the top of my funniest posters list.
And here I was under the mistaken impression that what I heard about hardcore neo-evolutionists having a severely limited sense of humor was true.
As it turns out, this information was nothing more than a vicious rumor perpetuated by hardcore neo-creationists. Figures!

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by bob_gray, posted 06-22-2004 10:41 AM bob_gray has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 138 (117550)
06-22-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AdminNosy
06-22-2004 11:54 AM


For The Record
My Position on the Origin of Life
Neither the theory of evolution, nor the theory of intelligent design are capable of adequately explaining the origin of life. Science alone serves it's purpose. Religion alone serves it's purpose. Neither is sufficient on it's own merits to reveal all unknowns.
Absolutistic attitudes and beliefs, regardless of the realm in which they are held, are defeatest in nature and are contrary to the promotion of the greater good necessary for the betterment of our society in general, and of our species as a whole.
A blending of social, philosophical, theological, and empirical evidence should be the chosen path of any individual whose mission is the revealing of heretofore undiscovered knowledge, wisdom, and truth. Differing opinions should be embraced, not viewed as a necessity for continual division of thoughts, ideas, concepts, and positions.
To choose a lessor path is to accept the the inevitable limitation of what can be discovered. Close-mindedness serves only individual needs and beliefs, giving no regard to the opinions and beliefs of others. Eagerness to acknowledge and investigate new concepts, and new ideas should be the cornerstone of any intelligent species.
Science serves a purpose, religion serves a purpose, secular awareness serves a purpose, social responsibility serves a purpose, but all must acknowledge their limitations and learn to work within their own framework. None, in and of itself, will ever be sufficient enough to reveal all of the unknowns. Society is better served by the integration of these individual concepts.
These concepts, working in conjunction, one to the others, gives mankind the greatest possibility of uncovering the unknowns. None should be viewed at the only course to travel. None can ever be totally independant of the others and expect to reveal the ultimate truth, for alone they all lead to unanswerable questions, but together they lead to a fuller understanding of our species, and of the origin and purpose of life.
Elitism is best left to aristocrats and royalty. It should receive no foothold in the scientific, religious, or social realms when truth is the ultimate goal. Cooperation is a tool of opportunity that receives far too little utilization. Absolutism is a tool that should be forever discarded, as it serves only the individual needs, giving no regard to the greater good of our society in general, or of our species as a whole.
I acknowledge design, so evident throughout the universe. Whether that design is the result of random chance or divine intervention is not a question for me to answer, nor is it a question that, in my humble opinion, either science or religion is capable of answering on it's own. Perhaps neither ever will but greater are the chances of mankind revealing the unknowns when science and religion are viewed as partners and not adversaries, acknowledging their own limitations, recognizing each others strengths, and agree to walk hand in hand through the myriad of unknowns that are before us. Only then can we honestly say that our ultimate goal is a greater understanding of the knowledge, wisdom, and truth that lay before us, as we surrender no concern to where the path may lead.
DarkStar
This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-22-2004 09:22 PM

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AdminNosy, posted 06-22-2004 11:54 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2004 11:42 PM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 116 by Reina, posted 06-28-2004 12:31 PM DarkStar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024