On The Limits of Human Talent

I read a passage in the bible. It's the verse about Eve created from the rib of Adam. I think, (leaning upon my understanding), that this is a wonderful metaphor describing the companionship between husband and wife. She is not taken from his foot to be treated as an inferior partner, but from his side.Someone else reads that same passage and thinks, (leaning upon their understanding), that a literal interpretation is necessary otherwise we can't trust what the bible says and we're heading down a slippery slope. (I'm not implying this is your interpretation.)The point is that there is no understanding in the bible itself. Understanding resides in the mind not the book. All we have is understanding. We choose to project it onto the book as we please. And then we get to assert things like, it was given to me of the spirit. I'm not really interested in traveling down that rabbit hole. I'll just note that even if that were true you still lean upon your understanding to arrive at that conclusion.

And how should we be able to do that a priori?
Back in the times when alchemy was all the rage, all of our current scientific knowledge would have fallen under the category of what we can't understand. Ooops, but you file some of our current knowledge under that category as well.So let me guess, the borderline between the two is any knowledge that challenges your personal understanding of the biblical narrative?I would wager that you're probably ok with the physics that led to the understanding and development of the A-bomb used to win WWII and yet it is the same physics that makes possible radiometric dating which you'd probably declare to be one of those areas we can't fully understand. Am I correct?
If not, no matter, there is some similar area of science that will illustrate the same point. Everyone has a vote. Are you dictating to the rest of the population how they should vote? You are intent on burying our nation beneath all others?Luckily then, all lot of research is privately funded. The areas that get funded by government are primarily those that get ignored by industry because of a lack of immediate monetary return. Nevertheless there are many spin-offs from these areas of science that benefit mankind in numerous ways.How exactly does your approach to carrying on scientific research function?
"Hey Joe, I keep running this test and the results keep coming up positive."
"Yes, Jack, but that contradicts the biblical narrative, maybe we should just shelve this whole experiment. It must be one of those areas we can't understand."
"But it is apparent from our research in this other area that we can understand, that this should also be the case."
"Jack, will your hair look nice without an occasional hair cut?"

But the funny part came just previous to this. Baraminologists deny 'hoax' charges, threaten legal actionWell I say funny, but to quote marc9000, "I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry."

Ah see? Shotgun rather than rifle and the posts grow exponentially out of control. There's no time to gather up each pellet and asses its merit. The one who pulled the trigger thinks each pellet hit the target doing some damage that never really took place and so he pats himself on the back thinking he's ahead in the debate. In reality there are no pellets in the shell, it is only stuffed with paper bits that never travel far from the end of the muzzle and settle harmlessly onto the floor. He never has to think too long or deeply enough about any one idea to see how his logic fails and come to understand something new that he didn't know before. He never has to modify his world view so he can leave the hammer and chisel in the drawer and enjoy another work free day of idleness. All the while the rising anger within his heart gets projected onto his imagined adversaries which are not really so but perhaps the only true friends he has though he doesn't see it.Dr Adequate has already done a point by point reply that I find to be, well,... adequate. But if I have time later I'll see if I can add anything from another perspective. You are interested in other perspectives aren't you?post #37 What is your purpose on forums such as these?

I put all the pertinent quotes for this thread together for reference at the bottom. This is a promising remark. You do realize that according to AiG and ICR you are doing exactly what you are complaining that the scientific community does? You are putting God's word to the test in the view of Aig and ICR. But in your mind you have altered your understanding of the biblical narrative such that there is no longer a conflict.
So who's standard do we use here to stop the scientific inquiry to reduce supernatural acts to natural explanations, yours or AiGs/ICRs?REFERENCESmessage 74

quote:

---

I know people that believe the fossils of dinosaurs were specially fabricated by God to test our faith. I couldn't remain on board that boat.

​

This is a result of "putting God to the test", or "leaning on our own understanding".

---

quote:

---

What caught my attention was not so much the lack of evidence for some of the recorded biblical events as much as the existence of contradictory evidence for those events. Did God create false evidence to test our faith?

​

Could be, but I think it's clearer that man bends over backwards to dig up false evidence.

---

quote:

---

I don't consider the time frame to be identifiable. I guess I disagree with AIG slightly on that one. I think (in some cases) we have to stop short of trying to identify times for religious purposes, or try to claim that early humans and dinosours lived at exactly the same time, as I think AIG does. I think it's a mistake to go out on that limb.

---

message 79

quote:

---

If you don't mind, (stunning victory BTW, congratulations are in order), would you mind starting a thread in the faith and belief forum to elaborate on the merits of refusing to use our minds to think (leaning upon our own understanding) or why you believe it is something worthy of reward in the hereafter. From my recollection this doesn't sit well with the parable about the talents.

---

from the OP

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

marc9000,
The other thread was the reason this thread began, remember? The shotgun remark is not about the number of participants in the thread it is about the number of topics being discussed. You are not just addressing various topics from science you are throwing in politics and business as well? Why not a remark or two about kitchen plumbing?I won't hammer on you for where you're at educationally. I think I read in another post somewhere you have a high school education? Physics students sometimes question the validity of say the theory of relativity when it is first taught to them. After they get a chance to work through it and understand it for themselves they come to grips with it. That's how learning works. You have to tackle it for yourself. So I am not surprised to see you broadly question science from where you sit. Add in your religious world view and it is tougher still. There is a distinction between those who will hold to their biblical interpretations despite the evidence and those who will modify their views if they come to understand the evidence for themselves. Some of your remarks seemed to leave open the possibility that you might be agreeable to changing your viewpoint if you examined the evidence for yourself rather than trusting what others are telling you. If that is not the case then let's agree to end the discussion because there really isn't any point is there? If however you would consider examining the evidence for yourself then this is the challenge. Instead of finding faults with what you are being taught start trying to fit the facts together into a self-consistent world view of your own. If you will honestly attempt to do this you will discover that no one is trying to pull one over on you. If you do not care to learn the material yourself what possible effect do you suppose you can have influencing others debating subject matter that you have not mastered? You will continue to throw quotes around from those you trust who you hope know what they are talking about. Myself for one.

I'll agree with you that science hasn't proven to be very useful for supporting your literal interpretation of Genesis. Yes, Dr. More-than-Adequate gets my vote as well. That it's ok to lose this debate, because if you 'win', in reality you lose.
No more hints.

This has already been commented on but another variation won't hurt.
A theory has to make testable predictions. ID doesn't do that. It makes no 'useful' predictions. A theory has to make testable predictions otherwise the theory isn't 'useful'. I think you are focusing on the word that someone chose to illustrate a concept rather than upon the concept itself.Everything was created last Thursday. Well alright, someone may believe that but it isn't a scientific theory. It makes no 'useful' predictions that can be tested. Therefore, by definition, it isn't science.This is quite a different concept than that involved in the statement "This branch of science isn't very useful," which may simply mean there are no practical applications to benefit the condition of mankind.Same word, different concepts. Specifically the exchange that gave birth to this thread was the following: (message 74, not so distant starlight problem, BB and cosmology)

quote:

---

I know people that believe the fossils of dinosaurs were specially fabricated by God to test our faith. I couldn't remain on board that boat.

​

This is a result of "putting God to the test", or "leaning on our own understanding".

---

So then studying fossils and attempting to understand the geologic history of our earth is in your view an untestable, unfalsifiable, special interest exploration? You feel it is on a par with ID in that respect?

marc9000,
I was a kid when we landed on the moon. I was backpacking that evening in the coastal redwood forests near Santa Cruz and remember staring up at the moon for quite a while. They used slide rules back then Marc, slide rules. Do you know what those are? Would you know how to use one? Many years later when I finished my first two undergraduate years I picked up a student job at NASA. My job was to input the programs into the computer. A little keyboard entry? Hardly. The job consisted of carrying and feeding stacks of punched cards into the machine.Did you watch the 1995 Apollo 13 movie? Would you want to be an astronaut on board that vessel? There was a deadline to meet and human safety was not highest on the list of priorities although I think we were more concerned with it than the Russians.Why don't we ask Elon Musk if he used a vintage 70's Fiat Spyder as the foundation for the design of his Tesla roadster?message 91: Were you born in Galileo's day perhaps you could have succeeded in destroying that demon possessed telescope altogether and in preserving the practical/useful world view of 16th century religion. No change, that's the goal. 10 years on forums such as these and we can see the practical/useful results.Before a building can be erected there needs to be a foundation laid. Have you considered the possibility of some college coursework? Wouldn't it be beneficial to better understand the enemy you are fighting? 10 years on forums like these? That's quite a chunk of time. What a waste, especially when you are only succeeding at making your opposition look better than they did previously. But you don't even see that, do you?

I wondered why you got my job after I was let go.

Thank you. That was my point. You see rage. I see people bending over backwards with patience. Ah yes the perks, but I'll pass.

His posts made me wince. If he dives into the ID threads I'm concerned I may develop a tic.