On The Limits of Human Talent

Shalamabobbi and I were having a discussion in this thread on my refusal to accept the many scientific claims that the Bible is wrong because of scientific evidence. I referred to the Biblical instruction of "leaning not on our own understanding", mainly in the way science tries to reduce supernatural acts into something that must comply with current scientific knowledge. I also made this statement;

quote:

---

I have faith in what the 66 book Bible says, concerning the history it contains, and the guidelines it puts forth for living this life. A significant part of it concerns not always placing trust in the wisdom of humans. It gets the front seat, science gets the back seat. I have no faith in science, unless I see actual evidence, not just what is said by scientific organizations who may have political motives.

---

This is the proposal for the thread he asked for. In regard to the parable of the talents, there are actually two, one in the book of Matthew, and one in Luke. They are similar, but not identical, and were told by Jesus at different times for different reasons. The Matthew one was the only one that used the term "talent", and it's important to note that it meant something different from its meaning today. Talent in those days was a measurement of money, not talent as we use the word today.But his point is noted, and to save time and space I don't feel it important to analyze all the writings and opinions on the above two areas of scripture, at least in this O/P. I agree with anyone who claims that God intends for us to apply ourselves, to do the best we can do, be the best we can be.By "lean not on our own understanding", I don't think that means to stop short of attempts to learn all we can about the natural world. It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test. To acknowledge that there are some things that humans will never be able to figure out, to the extent to be able to challenge anything the 66 book Bible says.Faith and belief forum, or "great debate" with shalamabobbi, his or moderators choice.

Hi GDR, I was referring to things that are proclaimed by secular science, mainly that the book of Genesis is wrong. Jesus never said that Genesis was wrong. What examples do you have where Jesus would agree with something today's scientific community says, as they challenge what the Bible says? You're equating faith with works? I don't see any similarity. I also don't see Jesus promoting comprising the Bible with human endeavors. Do you have some scripture to correct me with? The "world" goes to a lot of trouble to downplay everything about Christianity, including all of Jesus' teachings. If you believe Jesus would favor just shrugging it off, continuing to love them, and condone what they do, well, I think much of his teachings suggest otherwise.

I'd have to see some exact quotes, in their related context, before I could comment on that.

No, we should take a second look, ask ourselves who found this evidence, what their motives were, and what use the evidence actually is. Because it wasn't created in the same way it is sustained. When we try to use the laws that it is sustained by to explain how it was created, we start making small errors that quickly snowball into really big errors. A lot of things humans go to a lot of trouble to investigate are a complete waste of time. Life is short, there are a lot of important things to do that go undone because the scientific community is so busy chasing reinforcement to prop up its atheism. Like the scientific community does with Intelligent Design. Like global warming alarmists do with economic knowledge of the catastrophe that will happen if their brand of 'licence, regulate, restrict, prohibit' is put into place? No, it's strong enough that I don't have to test it, the same way you're afraid to test yours with something other than Darwinism.

I agree. The point of this thread is that we should be able to distinguish between useful science and wasteful science, or science that's only intent is to promote the destruction of Christianity. We should recognize the importance of leaving alone mysteries that belong only to God. I"m not saying that atheists shouldn't be permitted to study their secular curiousities all they want. They should just do on their own time with their own money, and not teach it as fact in public science classes. That's what they demand from Christians, but they don't apply it to themselves. And questioning public searches for atheist support.

And the understanding of atheists that shout it from the rooftops, on the public dime.

We have the capacity to lean upon our own understanding for lots of things. My point is that we should be able to distinguish between what we can understand and what we can't, or shouldn't waste our time (or public resources) with.

No, I never said I disregard science. I just disregard what is clearly not science, just metaphysical searches for support of the atheist worldview.

I agree. You pointed it out, but with no evidence. All accounts, or just some accounts? Those organizations and authors had/have a different purpose in what they publicly do, than in what someone like me does on forums such as these.The personal opinions of Morris, Gish, and others at creationist organizations might very well be slightly different than mine, no question there is more diversity in mainstream U.S. thinking than there is in the narrow minded scientific community, which seems to promote nothing but more atheist science, more big government, and less liberty. It wouldn’t necessarily be a "failure", it would be more like a subject that's not addressed by an organization, or book authors who are trying to appeal to a much wider audience than I am here. But I've little doubt that if most all those at the ICR were to see this thread's O/P, they would agree with me.But getting back to the broad approach, in a diverse society like the U.S., a lot of money and conflict could be saved if the scientific community wasn't given such free reign for determining what's important to study, just because it's important to them and promotes atheism.

Many would consider it common sense, and would like to see more public interests contribute to the decisions of what public money will be spent on to explore it, not just leaving it all up to the scientific community. As one example, depending on which astronomer is asked, the Milky Way galaxy has 100 billion to 400 billion stars. Which is it? The 300 billion difference is a big number. The scientific method, we're told, requires actual science to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. It would be logical to expect the 100 billion number, and the 400 billion number to be tested, and one of them falsified.Ah yes, Alchemy, a protoscience.

quote:

---

On protoscience Thomas Kuhn said that they "generate testable conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns.

---

Alchemy - WikipediaPhilosophy and arts? But it became science anyway.

quote:

---

In the eyes of a variety of esoteric and Hermetic practitioners, the heart of alchemy is spiritual.

---

And in the eyes of todays atheist scientific community, Intelligent Design is spiritual. So it won't be able to become a protoscience. Bad guess, the O/P clearly refers to the public in general, not me personally. Correct. I'm okay with science that has practical applications that we can use here and now, not when the same science, coupled with an extra guess and a promise, is used to try to prove the Bible wrong. Yes, everyone has a vote. So why does the scientific community constantly claim that only the scientific community has the right to determine what is science? Why do they only want to use the courts to make decisions about things like Intelligent Design? Hey Joe, I keep looking in this microscope and discovering that Michael Behe's book is right, the simplest forms of life that we know just fell together by unguided processes are so complicated that mathematicians are likely to show some really long odds that they came about that way.Yes Jack, but that contradicts the views of the atheists that sign our paychecks. Maybe we should invent "entrance requirements" for Michael Behe's work to become science, all the while guessing about the number of stars in the Milky Way, the number of galaxies in the universe, how the earth was formed billions of years ago, how the first life form originated, etc.But Joe, do you think enough of the general public will be soundly enough asleep to not question our double standards?Jack, you said that too loud - here comes the boss down the hall - will your body look nice without it's head? Oh, my little quote stayed with you for a few days, did it? Sorry if you lost any sleep. Remember though, lots of difference between atheist/scientific websites little funnies, compared to supposedly serious evolutionist posters who were proven to not read what they're angrily responding to.

Not counting GDR and AZPaul, I have 12 opponents in this thread. And you accuse my posts of growing out of your control to answer? I'm sorry you’re hurting for time, but after all, there are 11 more to help you. What advise would you have for me to answer 12 opponents? Yes, you sized up my 12 opponents very well! Exactly, in the case of any one of my opponents. They don't think too long or deeply, they just disappear from the thread if they have few pellets, their absence is generally not noticed, especially if they have one or more replacements, which has happened in the case of my opponents many times in the past. "Modify my worldview"?? Do I have any examples of others doing that on these forums? Rising anger? This can actually be quite fun. Sure, 12 isn't nearly enough. I can sometimes even ease-up a little from my right-wing leanings, and say something completely down the middle, completely uncontroversial, and since everyone's so bent out of shape at me, they'll still kick and scream about something completely uncontroversial that I've said. As I said, kinda fun. To challenge what scientists/atheists/liberals say from a more conservative point of view rather than from a more faithful, Biblical point of view, as do many other creationist posters, or websites like AiG or ICR. Also to do my microscopic part to provide some balance to a place that may have young, gullible, science students who come here and think they’ve found some kind of educated, mainstream political opinion. They haven’t found it, they've found a radical, extreme political view that is held by only about 20 to 30% of the mainstream U.S. population.

"Error range"? I've never heard that expression before, do different scientific disciplines have different error ranges? Who determines what that range is?

Organ transplantation, electrical appliances, arms manufacturing, pig farming, etc. then.....ages of rocks. A whole list of useful human activity, then...ages of rocks. If the scientific community has established as fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why do they continue to be fascinated with...ages of rocks? Is it for useful, practical purposes, or is it to fine-tune todays atheist science education? $27 million (if I remember right) in 1969 dollars to go to the moon, I think all we have left to show for it is a few...rocks. Every last shred of documentation of exactly how it was done was LOST, in a series of NASA blunders. I guess since they got their rocks, they were no longer worried about the tax money they wasted. So much for the giant leap for mankind. But I’m curious as to what it is about rocks that inspires atheists to waste so much time and money. If I lived a standard, politically correct, go with the flow lifestyle that most of you liberals do, I probably wouldn't be as afraid as I am of activist atheist scientists. But I'm one of millions of self employed, and along with medium sized business owners, and large corporation owners, and as a group, we merit plenty of attention from activist atheist scientists.You see Dr, one-person operations like mine as well as the largest corporations have to be able to do one thing, and that is to PLAN. Doesn't matter if we want to grow in business, or stay the same. We won't have anything to do if we can't foresee what will happen tomorrow, or a year, or five years from now. Free market activity doesn't change overnight, it changes slowly, usually pretty predictably, or not at all in some cases. Planning is possible, and necessary in those conditions. But it's all thrown completely into chaos when the government meddles, at the whims of activist atheist scientists combined with political corruption. That's when businesses go under, lifestyles are destroyed, sometimes by nothing more than liberal atheist scientists who gained a political foothold with their education.Unfortunately, liberal atheists are often as stupid as the bugs you refer to above, because free markets tend to react to their stupid mandates in ways that they didn’t anticipate. A few decades ago, largely through global warming hysteria, auto fuel mileage standards were put into place, to see to it that Americans all drove little rollerskate econoboxes that the liberals in government had in mind for them. What happened of course, was a huge majority of people flocked to pickups and SUV's, so now overall fuel milage in the U.S. is probably lousier than it would have been if government would have just left it alone. That's only one example of government meddling with unexpected (to government) consequences. Obamacare is, of course, another. As most atheist liberal scientists are unaware and indifferent to the damage they do to society as they continue to try to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important with their mandates. And they have plenty of people like you to support them with cutesy little rants like this, and think you are a tremendous help to them. Dr. Adequate, please listen carefully. Very few people read, or participate on atheist forums such as these. These forums mean nothing in determining the increase or decrease in radical liberal atheist scientific agendas. Some other things for you to pay close attention to; free market corporations are not intentionally warming the planet so they can sell more air conditioners. They, nor the scientific community, have the power to control the temperature of the planet. The planet has been slightly warming and cooling on its own for thousands of years, the scientific community can't change anything about it by taking over corporate decisions or stripping individuals of their liberties, or looking at more rocks.It's true that global warming hysteria would have been the dream of every brutal dictator that's ever existed in the past, as an easy way to gain control over the masses, that still doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but a big government farce. Now it is true that upsetting liberal atheists is one of the incidental consequences of the fact that the unwashed masses haven't signed their freedoms over to the scientific community yet, and it's unsure if they will ever become that brainwashed.

It's also from another thread. You responded to it in that thread, and I answered you in that thread. Your shotgun really gets out of control when you can't keep quotes within one thread. I don't care about AiG and ICR in this thread. They don't lead me around by the nose like Dawkins and a few others lead atheists around. One of your 11 helpers brought up AiG and ICR. Though you've decided to jump on that rabbit trail and run with it, the fact remains that they have nothing to do with this thread. The O/P was in my words, so it would be my opinions/"standards" to question scientific attempts to convince the masses that they are gods, that they are capable of knowing all of reality.

Welcome #13, the others may need you. A "why not" for rocks, and ballistic rages for Intelligent Design. Must be different error ranges. Examples? With some cost/benefit analysis? I looked it up years ago, it was a 27 billion, not million. My mistake. I guess you think that nullifies my point? All knowledge of rocket boosters, and other information about the mechanics of the trip, LOST. I don't have to look that up.