|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What does your post have to do with anything I posted?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2417 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I'm saying that there are real problems with science at large.
And the fact that many scientists can't even see the multiple scientific methods that have been vigorously at play (like the patina issue and the multi year courtroom drama) in the James Ossuary issue speaks volumes. Ignorance isn't going to stop me from telling the truth. Heck, I had a great interest in the world learning more about James LONG BEFORE THIS OSSUARY DISCOVERY. It was a good discovery, but people claimed the BROTHER OF JESUS part of the inscription was a forgery. It was proven to be authentic using science. Then people claimed that the authentic "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" wasn't part of the Talpiot Tomb (where a Jesus, son of Joseph was buried). The scientific process proved that there was a very unique and precise chemical composition (due to soil filling the Talpiot Tomb) in both the Tomb and the specific James Ossuary. 2 for 2. (The DNA might not matter much, except if one wants to know if the Mary is related to Jesus. Better to know than not, but I sure wish the other Ossuaries had DNA that wasn't completely ruined) (The patina was almost ruined by bleach too)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
To me this one is always funny when it's done on the Interwebs.
quote: Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Ignorance isn't going to stop me from telling the truth. But how do we know what the truth is? What makes one guys truth another guys redaction? What makes the real truth hidden in suppressed documents while the status quo of the majority culture is wrong? What makes one world view any truer than another? And where do we look for this elusive truth? What sources do we explore? What books do we read and what books do we reject? I trust my mind, but I also trust my heart and my intuition. Critics may say I am biased as to what I will find. Are they right?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2417 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Carl Sagan said that the suppression of unpopular truths might be typical in religion and politics, but it has no place in the endeavor of science. So I don't find it funny to find out that there is a selection bias among scientists when it comes to publishing (negative) results. It seems to have resulted in dangerous treatments being made to look not so dangerous. Again, not funny. But it shows that there can be a bias in publication and exposure which translates into flawed knowledge. There is a deficiency of knowledge and it can, at times, be dangerous. It is hard to pay attention to something vitally important when it isn't published due to bias. This can explain why the scientific tests, regarding the James Ossuary & Talpiot Tomb, don't seem to be recognized as scientific. People seem to be choosing to see what they want to see (even scientists will fail to see the "science" in the story though it is all over it if one knows the details). I have witness it multiple times on this thread alone. And even by scientists themselves (though by no means limited to them). Amazing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
True believers in any religion have no business doing science, or even talking about science.
Their bias leads them to do the exact opposite of what science does. Examples: the young earth and global flood during historic times beliefs.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Yes. I trust my mind, but I also trust my heart and my intuition. Critics may say I am biased as to what I will find. Are they right? Anybody can be biased. That's why we invented objectivity. If you're interested in "truth" at all, you have to listen when people point out your biases, not take it as an insult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2417 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I put this search term into google (news tab):
james brother discovery text scholar Look what was found
quote: It is an extant Greek text, of something that we already had in Coptic (the Greek text itself is earlier) . But the "paper-copy" chronologically is LATER, than the Coptic "paper", as far as the actual age of the copy. Old text. Newer "paper" and ink. A new copy. But, it is significant because it offers us hope that other, more important earlier documents (like the Gospel of the Hebrews) will be found to have been copied and studied . And Egypt offers hope. LOOK at this issue
quote: A very important technique that could offer earth shaking (no stretch and this could be BiG - eventually) discoveries. The web page also has nice maps, videos, and sidebars. A side bar
quote: This is the oldest continually running monastery in the world. Lots of erased texts, so hopefully we can find some really important stuff (especially the from the more-important Early Christian Alexandrian Period of the first few centuries of the common era. Alexandria is not in a climate where texts are preserved, unfortunately) But back to the James discovery (hot off the NEWSWEEK press).
quote: Let us hope this is a harbinger of what is to come. The tip of the iceberg? I hope so because I am wondering just what was in the "Gospel According to the Hebrews". Harnack dated it to 65-100 C.E. and the Papias testimony seems to back that early dating up. (Papias' reference has been redated to 110 A.D. by several scholars and it should be known that his writings were dated around 140 during the time of Adolf Harnack) I am wondering if the Egyptian Gospel of the Hebrews should be seen as separate from the Gospel of the Nazarenes (the latter is seen as a translation from Greek Matthew into Hebrew/Aramaic while the former is seen as a Greek text that perhaps had sources that largely came from a somewhat different orbit than Matthew) or will the two be seen as part of a larger text? I want to get some answers already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes:
You do realize, don't you, that most of the developers of modern science were strong religious believers? True believers in any religion have no business doing science, or even talking about science.Their bias leads them to do the exact opposite of what science does. (Egs. Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, ...) "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You do realize, don't you, that most of the developers of modern science were strong religious believers? (Egs. Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, ...) Of course. But they were able to separate their religious beliefs from the science they were doing. Our "true believer" creationists are unable to do so, and thus disqualify themselves from doing science. In reality they are doing the exact opposite of science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
They were products of their societies. They were probably racists and sexists and royalists too. And they were not infallible in any of their conclusions.
You do realize, don't you, that most of the developers of modern science were strong religious believers?(Egs. Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, ...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1050 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
This can explain why the scientific tests, regarding the James Ossuary & Talpiot Tomb, don't seem to be recognized as scientific. People seem to be choosing to see what they want to see (even scientists will fail to see the "science" in the story though it is all over it if one knows the details). I have witness it multiple times on this thread alone. I can't see that anyone on this thread has questioned the validity of the science involved in the of the patina. As far as I can see the only mention of it that wasn't you was by me. I wrote:
quote: The point is that this is only supposed to establish that this specific ossuary comes from this specific tomb. If that's true, it doesn't establish a lot else. No one has questioned the science presented; only the unwarranted conclusions you're trying to draw from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
It is natural to expect that the religious leanings of the early scientists was simply a reflection of their society. But this is wrong.
They were products of their societies. As historian of science Ian Barbour wrote:
quote:Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Kb writes: It is natural to expect that the religious leanings of the early scientists was simply a reflection of their society. But this is wrong. It's not wrong, pretty much everybody in 17th century England was a believer - it was almost impossible not to be. The science that the early scientists played with was not a challenge to religion so there was no difficulty with it - until it contradicted areas of belief and we all know what happened then. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
Your own quote doesn't show that it's wrong.
It is natural to expect that the religious leanings of the early scientists was simply a reflection of their society. But this is wrong.As historian of science Ian Barbour wrote....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024