|
Author
|
Topic: Investigation of Biblical science errors
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 80 of 138 (116226)
06-17-2004 9:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
06-17-2004 6:42 AM
|
|
Keeping it honest
Ok, being in agreement to keep it honest, let's look back beginning with your post in Message 31 and then take it from there. If I have missed any posts where you supplied requested biblical references, please point them out for me. Thanks holmes writes: Okey doke. While you're at it I'd like you to explain how science will confirm that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth. It is well known that the Bible not only suggests this, but that the Xian church fought to stop heliocentric theory because it was incongruous with those writings. Darkstar:
I will concede your point about the church, (with the understanding that you are referring to the catholic hierarchy here), fighting to stop heliocentric theory. I do this not only for times sake, which will save me from having to do a study in the history of the catholic church, but because I can imagine the catholic hierarchy doing just such a thing, and also because regardless of what the catholic church may have done, it has no bearing on what the christian's bible does say. So then, please provide the biblical references for this claim "that space is a metallic (or solid anyway) sphere, and that everything revolves around the earth." so that I may check them out for myself and then I will be in a better position to put forth my opinion and state whether I am in agreement, or disagreement, with your position. Thanks holmes writes: And moving on from space, I have had a longstanding question that no Xian has ever adequately answered... In a portion of the Bible which discusses marriage "laws", it states that a groom may accuse his wife of not being a virgin on their wedding night. If he is right then he gets a divorce and she gets stoned to death. The woman proves her innocence (and remember this is the BIBLE talking) by showing bloodstains on the marriage bed's sheets. The idea being that virgins have hymens that will break on first penetration by a man. This is an old wive's tale that has been debunked every way AND Sunday. There just is no truth to this. Women can lose their hymen without sex, and may not lose it even after several sessions of sex. DarkStar: If I am not mistaken, I have already addressed the hymen issue in Message 31 and have received no response that I am aware of. I await your reply, and your biblical references addressing these points. Remember, we're keeping it honest here. Thanks Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by Silent H, posted 06-17-2004 6:42 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2004 6:42 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 81 of 138 (116239)
06-17-2004 10:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by sidelined
06-17-2004 8:48 PM
|
|
Grasping at straws.....or should I say strawman!
NEWS FLASH:
Explosions rocked this sleeply little community just before sunrise today. By midday, firefighters were still battling numerous blazes caused by the explosions at the local fireworks factory. Fears rose as residents became increasingly convinced that the blaze would escape the immediate surroundings and threaten the entire town. Fire chief Kendall, attempting to calm their fears, declared that the blaze was nearly under control and should be fully extinguished by sunset today. WEATHER REPORT:
Showers will be ending later in the day with the clouds moving out of the area. Temperatures will cooler than normal tonight but will still be favorable for those of you who enjoy a quiet walk in the moonlight. Sunrise? Sunset? Moonlight? Can the sun actually rise and set? Does the moon actually put forth light? No, of course not. Science confirms the rotation of the earth on it's axis and the moon reflects the light from the sun, and yet terms like these are in constant use even today. Let's get serious here and cease with the superfluous arguments that exhibit nothing more than a strawman mentality. I should have hoped that honest evolutionists would be above the kind of vacuous posting that has been going on here. Jeers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by sidelined, posted 06-17-2004 8:48 PM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 87 by sidelined, posted 06-19-2004 2:48 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 84 of 138 (116583)
06-18-2004 9:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by bob_gray
06-16-2004 11:34 PM
|
|
Re: What dreams may come + asteroids
bob writes: I don't know that anyone can make the claim about falling stars to be asteroids. We may know that now but there is no reference in the bible to an asteroid. Star: from the Greek "Aster" meaning "star like". Naw, couldn't possibly be referring to an "asteroid", now could it.....and if you believe that one I have some beautiful oceanfront property in Kansas that I would love to sell to you. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by bob_gray, posted 06-16-2004 11:34 PM | | bob_gray has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 86 by bob_gray, posted 06-18-2004 11:33 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 85 of 138 (116585)
06-18-2004 9:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by Silent H
06-18-2004 6:42 AM
|
|
Re: Keeping it honest
holmes writes: DarkStar: If I am not mistaken, I have already addressed the hymen issue in Message 31 and have received no response holmes writes: Message 31 is MINE, and I have received no response on that issue that I am aware of. DarkStar writes: You are absolutely correct. My reply was in
Message 58
which has been color edited to assist reading. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2004 6:42 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Silent H, posted 06-20-2004 7:20 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 89 of 138 (116938)
06-20-2004 10:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by sidelined
06-19-2004 2:48 AM
|
|
Sidelined Unconvinced of his Strawman Argument but a Rose by Any Other Name..........
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? 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: 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. sidelined writes: Anyway the fact of the matter is that the bible supposedly offers scientific based information that upon examination proves to be worthless or so stretched by tricks of language as to be vague beyond repair. I will await further examples if you have them to present. DarkStar writes: Again, I think this fully proves my earlier contention in Message 36 which reads as follows:
DarkStar writes: Exactly as I predicted! Some of these latest posts in this thread have proven my earlier point that nothing in the bible that is shown to a determined non-believer will ever be able to convince them that there are indeed references to scientific realities that science has only recently uncovered and found to be true. The reason for this, as I have always stated, is that they have purposefully become entrenched, and willfully predisposed themselves with the idea that the bible can not possibly contain any kind of reference to scientific realities that are now, or may someday be, confirmed by science. It does not matter what they are shown, as they have already pre-manufactored in their unbelieving mind an excuse for not accepting anything that is presented to them, regardless of the obvious references, which are clearly visible to the well educated, open-minded individual. They keep their mind closed at all times, and at all costs, to the possibility of any valid statements in the bible when it comes to science. These same individuals will claim that they are not so disposed, and that if they are shown any real evidence of biblical accuracy concerning science, that they will willingly accept such evidence but the reality is that they never will, they never can, due to their pertinacious attitude, coupled with their aversion to the possibility of the bible being true. I have always, and shall always, approach every aspect of life with my mind opened to new possibilities. That it why I can easily validate the biblical references to scientific realities, without automatically having to validate any religious belief in and of itself. DarkStar writes: Your statement,{Anyway the fact of the matter is that the bible supposedly offers scientific based information that upon examination proves to be worthless or so stretched by tricks of language as to be vague beyond repair.},is a prime example of what I claimed earlier. Your statement above is a clear example of predispositional thought concerning the validity of anything scientific in the bible and yet you continue on saying,{I will await further examples if you have them to present.},as though your proclivity for bias is nonexistant. I can even perceive you responding with something along the lines of,{"No, I am not biased. All you have to do is show me something scientific"},which would in fact present an impossibility due to what I believe is your predilection towards denial of all things concerning scientifically based references in the bible, which I would think should be self evident to you, but even in that regard, I believe that you are in denial. In another post, you referenced a passage that spoke of a tree seen around the world, (or something to that effect), and then used this as an example of scientific flaws in the bible when it obviously had nothing to do with science in the first place, as the passage was about a troubling dream that someone had. When this was brought to light by me, you did a sidestep and then still attempted to defended your position on the matter. It was at that moment that it became very clear to me that your bias of anything related to science and the bible runs extremely deep, deeper perhaps than even that which has been made evident thus far. With this being the case, and having come to so great an impass, we are summarily forced to "agree to disagree" on this matter as it is obvious, to me at least, that you have unadmittedly made yourself willfully blind to what my own eyes can clearly, and plainly see, so obvious are the references. As I have already stated on numerous occasions, I neither regard the bible as a solid source of reference where science is concerned, nor do I deny what I perceive and understand to be scientific truths within it's pages, and I would hope that you do not misconstrue my position regarding this matter. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by sidelined, posted 06-19-2004 2:48 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 107 of 138 (117678)
06-22-2004 10:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
06-22-2004 7:09 PM
|
|
holmes writes: Please do explain why I get no points. Moses passed on the teachings of God and that is what is found, especially within those sections.
You get no points because of your inability to distinguish between the law of moses and the law of god. My understanding of the bible, limited as it may be, is that the law of god, apart from what was commanded in the garden, was contained on two tablets, while the law of moses was much more extensive. It took me awhile to find this but, when referring to the law of moses after being asked why moses commanded the men to give their wives a writing of divorce, jesus says in matthew 19:8 "moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, commanded you to put away your wives in this manner, but from the beginning it was not to be so." Here you have jesus pointing out the law of moses which required a writing of divorce, differing from the law of god which jesus quotes earlier in matthew 19:6, "what god has joined together as one, let no man divide in two." Hopefully that will clear things up for you, but somehow, I kind of doubt it because, as your signature says, "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.." At least you can't say I didn't try to show you where you made your error.
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Silent H, posted 06-22-2004 7:09 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 108 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2004 8:58 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 109 of 138 (118440)
06-24-2004 9:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Silent H
06-23-2004 8:58 AM
|
|
Born to Err
I think anyone who has read the bible would have to agree that from the beginning to the ending, the errors of men are prevelant. That men make errors is not news. That moses made errors is not news. I think there is one story where god told moses to talk to a rock to make it bring forth water but moses struck it as he had done before. If I am not mistaken, the water still came out even though moses disobeyed god but moses was punished for it later. The bible is a book that is full from beginning to end with the mistakes that men have made. Moses was no exception. The bible says moses did murder someone and yet god still chose him to lead the people. The bible says the israelites saw god perform miracle after miracle and still they turned away from their god when things got a little tough. Men make mistakes, just ask any woman if you don't believe that. They will set you straight in a new york minute. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2004 8:58 AM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by Silent H, posted 06-25-2004 7:49 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2