Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 210 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#13142 - 09/12/05 04:39 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Also, I seriously doubt that we have "original" text of either Isaiah or Job.

Top
.
#13143 - 09/12/05 05:02 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
oneplanet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 14
Loc: Australia
Hmmm, lets hope not for your sake.

Top
#13144 - 09/12/05 05:05 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I'm guessing Isaiah was written maybe 300 to 1K years BC. (It's been a long time since I had any interest in the subject.) You're saying you think we have ORIGINAL text - text that was written by the authors themselves and not just stuff that was copied from scribe to scribe?

Or are you saying we have stuff that was copied and recopied and re-recopied, but which we believe is pretty close or identical to the original?

Top
#13145 - 09/12/05 05:46 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
oneplanet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 14
Loc: Australia
Written 760 BC in times of declension and apostasy in Israel.

Quote:
You're saying you think we have ORIGINAL text - text that was written by the authors themselves and not just stuff that was copied from scribe to scribe?
The original texts naturally could be copied from scribe to scribe and translated incorrectly. But do you think the author of the Bible, Elohim (God the Creator) would allow His Word to be mistranslated? Of course not.

Humour me for this next sentence. If God can create the complexity of life such as the Wombat or Bombardier beetle, then keeping His Word in tact would be a simple task.

The scribes He selected to write down His Word did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit not under the hands of infallible man. The skeptic, who we all are at some point, can test the accuracy of scripture firstly through linking all 66 books together, which is quite a study.

Or apply the numerical division and multiplication of the numbers 777 and 888 to the Hebrew and Greek texts. The original Greek is the Textus Receptus.

Top
#13146 - 09/12/05 08:29 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi Mung,

I happen to be an atheist. To answer your question, one must ask you what you mean by God. Do you mean an all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious being who created the universe? Or do you mean some unconscious force that somehow animates the universe? After having read the comments to you, it strikes me that part of the problem is a lack of clarity as to what you mean by "God."

Top
#13147 - 09/12/05 11:37 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 09/09/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Virginia, USA
I have read the book in several English versions and a few German versions. There are differences in translations, but God killed those who mistranslated it with the plauge of old age.

One simple error was the account of Paul's vision. In one case those with him saw a light and didn't hear anything, in the other, they heard a voice but didn't see anything. Probably an editing error.

I don't think God interferes that much with life, the rules of the universe are set. We use science and wisdom to discover what those rules are. The Bible contains a lot of wisdom, but not much on science. And, heaven help us, some books are much better than others in the wisdom category. As you recall, Yesua was quoted as saying: "you have heard it in the past an eye for an eye, but I say unto you" (proceeds to teach forgiveness and love) So he was going against Moses? law of retribution.

The bible will always remain an important part of humanity. But it is not a mystical book with every line having hidden meaning, and especially not in the English version where young woman is translated as virgin because the council of Nicene elevated her to "The mother of God". And then there is the brother of Yesua is only his cousin because that would cause doctrine problems for Mary to have more than one child. (That one has been corrected in many English versions now "James the brother of Jesus".)
_________________________
Sparky

Top
#13148 - 09/12/05 04:47 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"The original texts naturally could be copied from scribe to scribe and translated incorrectly. But do you think the author of the Bible, Elohim (God the Creator) would allow His Word to be mistranslated? Of course not. "

There are a lot of characteristics and actions that I would never attribute to a real deity - and the god of the judeo-christian tradition exemplifies most of those characteristics and most performs most of those actions that I would not think possible in a god. So I'm not sure what that questions means.

Numerology is not science. That certain numbers and patterns show up in the ancient texts isn't remotely evidence that the words in the texts are true.

Top
#13149 - 09/12/05 07:34 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
DA Morgan replies to jjw004

I made a brief comment on this question to the effect that science and religion had a basic hypothetical disagreement. Mr. morgan says no?

jjw004 said:
"We tend to overlook the basics between religion and science. Proof that either thought process is superior or factual can not be found."

Morgan replied:
Absolute nonsense. Here's a simple test.

Take one Jew, one Christian (of any denomination), one Sunni Moslem, one Shiite moslem, one Buddhist, and one animist and put them into a room.

Test 1: Ask them to watch water freeze. See if they can agree on a single set of facts to describe what happened.

Test 2: Ask them to read each other's religious scriptures and to agree on a single set of facts to describe the origin of the universe.

Case closed.

You understanding of science ... "tells us to beleive that MATTER always was and always will be" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science since, at least, the 1800s.

What on earth is Mr. Morgan saying other than that he does not understand the importance of the very basic difference between the origins of science and religion. The very concept of the creation of things by science view is that MATTER was always here otherwise the Big Bang came from nothing? Religion claims that God created MATTER and all else. Science creates a universe without the intervention of any God.

Educated people do not rush to trash the comments of others. You appear to think that freezing water is not consistent with the existence of God. Merely being party to a religious concept does not equate to stupidity any more than having "scientific concepts" is a sign of smarts. Lighten up.
jjw004

Top
#13150 - 09/12/05 08:30 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
oneplanet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 14
Loc: Australia
This is my last post on this forum. I have a lot to offer about Evolution, Creation and the Bible that would open many mainstream thinker?s eyes but I can see that this is not a receptive forum broaching on a hate site, by a few, towards anything remotely biblical.

I would like to say to those of you who do look into the Word of God that you must do so bearing in mind the seven dispensations of time and the eight covenants of God. If this is not done then you will only gain a secular and humanistic view of the Bible, which is what has happened on this forum. If so you will misinterpret, see ambiguity all because of the lack of understanding the dispensational truths.

Immediately, people jump onto the religious wheel and automatically assume that the Catholic System is somehow Christian. You have to be kidding. Religion makes a worse mess of the scriptures than atheists do. The fact is no religion leads to salvation and all are abhorred by the One True God of the Bible. You don?t have to read too deeply to see that.

On a closing note, I always thought that science was the observation of things happening. I fail to see how anyone can claim millions of years of evolution especially as no one was there to witness it? But God was there in the beginning! Even Charles Darwin said that his entire evolutionary mold rests on a transitional fossil record that does not exist.

Cheers folks there are other forums and people who are interested. No one asked one question here about science embedded into scripture. What a terrible blight to withstand so much pride and bear hostile towards the very One who breathes live into you without a fair hearing.

Regards - Rod

Top
#13151 - 09/12/05 09:46 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
oneplanet:
Criticism is not hate. If you say something provocative, you cannot be surprised when those whom you have provoked respond vigorously.

Science is more than just "the observation of things happening." It's not a wonder that you are an anti-darwinian. Your comments about the fossil record are based on rumors and false reasoning that creationists float around amongst themselves as if they mattered.

Contrary to the persecution complex of creationists, they aren't criticized for "disagreeing with" or for "questioning" evolution. They are criticized because they make unequivocal assertions about the subject without having done the slightest bit of real homework. Reading bible tracts is not "doing your homework." Neither is cut-n-pasting blather from answersingenesis.com.

There are other people who aren't willing to do any real homework on the subject, people who are mentally lazy and won't be bothered to actually try to critically evaluate the claims you make to them. Mentally lazy people have a luxury not shared by the people who do their homework - to the mentally lazy person even the most idiotic notion can sound like genius.

Just one sample specific note:
"I fail to see how anyone can claim millions of years of evolution especially as no one was there to witness it?"
Here is a critical flaw in your understanding of what science is - one that shows you have gotten your "understanding" of science not from competent science teachers or from practicing science or reading about it, but from "researching" creationist fake-science sites. This is EXACTLY analogous to saying that photons do not exist because no one has ever seen one. We don't have to SEE a thing to be quite certain of its existence. Yours is the comic-book understanding of science promulgated by answersingenesis, among others, who depend on the fact that you will be too lazy to figure this out yourself. And they were apprently right.

It's not that you aren't smart. It's not that you are not capable of learning. It's that whatever intelligence you may have acquired by nature or by god is being wasted by a conscience effort to remain ignorant.

Top
#13152 - 09/12/05 10:53 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
oneplanet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 14
Loc: Australia
TheFallibleFriend:
Okay, my second last post. Your response could equally apply to yourself. With respect, mate, a vague reply with pompous overtones. Do you truly think creation scientists have not done their home work or tramped all over the planet the same as other scientists? That comment surprises me from you. Have you spoken with these people?

And what is all this about bible tracts and answersingenesis? Perhaps 10% of what I know has come from this group the rest has come from the field and independent creation/evolutionary scientists. But it is true that the answers are indeed in Genesis.

You say my efforts have been wasted by a conscience effort to remain ignorant. Odd! That is what God says about the end times, most are willingly ignorant of His Word.

Rod

Top
#13153 - 09/13/05 01:15 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
" vague reply with pompous overtones"
Part of it was general and part of it was VERY specific; i.e. the comparison of our knowledge of evolution to our knowledge of photons. Yes, I admit my tone was pompous. It was intended to express irritation, but yes, it was probably pompous as well.

" Do you truly think creation scientists have not done their home work "
Yes. I do. Trampling over the planet does not equate to doing one's homework. I have spoken with numerous creationists over the years. More importantly, I have read probably more creationist literature than I have evolution science. So, yea, I think I get the gist of where they're coming from.

I was using ansersingenesis as an example. There is a plethora of anti-darwinian sites on the web and most of them are feeding from the same sources - ICR, papers by Morris, Gish, Behe, Wells, Dembski, and other pseudo-scientists. It's all the same copiously refuted nonsense that they've always put forth. They put on the site messages for guys like you: "Now you will be reviled and called an idiot and among other things, but here's the FACTS you can present to them." Knowing full well that none of the true believers will check too closely.

The answers are not "in genesis" or any other religious reference manual. The answers are in the library. Use it.

Top
#13154 - 09/13/05 02:26 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
oneplanet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 14
Loc: Australia
TheFallibleFriend:
You are honest in your writing but there?s no point in going on is there? I do respect your comments and I agree with much of what you have said. I am sure if we were ever to talk face to face we would get on very well despite the opposite sides of the fence.

The scientists you have quoted I have not read any of their works so I can?t comment. But your reference to Genesis as being a religious manual isn?t really a proper analogy. What does religion have to do with the Word of God? God is the essence of life and has nothing to do with man?s religious views of the Bible. Believers in the Bible never talk about religion being the domain of atheists and religious people.

I was once a staunch evolutionist causing no end of trouble with local creationists and I admit I have not entirely changed to believing in creation from scientific evidence. Though I do find it impossible to believe any animal could have evolved especially the bombardier beetle, the Australian blowfly, the human eye, the list is endless.

But my real change of belief came from the incredible insight the scriptures show about the differences between man and beast. This extended into why God says we are created in His image.

Where atheists and religious people go wrong with the validity of the Bible is not understanding the how it came into existence.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Then in 2 Peter 9:20-21 it plainly states: "No prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Like it or not we all have a God consciousness shown in our distinct difference to the Animal Kingdom. Think about it have you ever seen an animal build an alter to God.

So, FallibleFriend, lets part with our own beliefs and I wish you the best wherever you live.

Cheers - Rod

Top
#13155 - 09/13/05 07:22 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
John Warren Offline
Member

Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 30
hmm

Faith or Theory

which is a greater test of ones Belief's

Top
#13156 - 09/13/05 08:32 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


God transcends any definition given by any religion...It is simply everything.
There is nothing beyond him. There is nothing seperate from him.Most of us (except few) are like Monkeys who eat their fruit without having any idea of where we are dropping the seeds and for what purpose.
Those who know this grand ecosystem often move up in life.
Discussing God based upon a particular religion has its own limitation based on the religion's ability to express the extent of harmonious divinity which often gets defined as moral correctness.
Devil is not at all necessary at a certain religious plane of understanding...
Religions evolve ... so should we wihout negating what was achieved.
The unified source has no guilt about his creation.(In a science forum this can be considered blasphemous.)

Top
#13157 - 09/13/05 12:27 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I get along with most people. I respect most people, because I appreciate people for whatever virtues they have.

I do not believe that people decide what they believe. They only decide what to profess - what they believe is determined by what makes sense TO THEM. What makes sense to them is determined by their upbringing, their education and studying and thinking.

I don't have any desire to change your mind. I only point out things that I think are wrong. I forgot which philosopher said it, "To free a man of error is to give not to take away: Knowledge that a thing is false is a truth."

I can appreciate that you believe there are some things that could not possibly have evolved. But this opinion is based on 1) faulty information and 2) faulty reasoning.

The case of the bombadier beetle, for example, is widely known to have been based on a mistranslation of the original paper. More generally though, this belief - that something could not possibly have evolved - is based on prejudice and perhaps a misunderstanding of the power of chance.

Some years ago, David Vogel had an article in IEEE spectrum in which he outlined the four steps to an evolutionary algorithm. For fun, I coded this up in VB (or maybe it was java ... I forget ... anyway) and set it out to solve the TSP. I was really wasn't expecting a success. I was quite amazed by the results. An interesting thing, though, the solutions it found (and it converged much quicker than I expected) were ALWAYS much better than what I think a human could have achieved unaided by a computer; HOWEVER, no matter how good the computer got (and I ran it several hundred times) I could always take one look at it and find several ways to improve it immediately. The best solutions were not human generated or computer generated - but hybrid.

But it got me thinking about this whole thing of what it means to be random. I don't think it's a proof of evolution and I don't expect it to convince you of anything. But it's convinced me - not of the fact of evolution which I already accepted - but of the possiblities of power of evoluton.

BTW, I attended a conference once and met a world expert on genetic algs and evolutionary progs and asked him about my results. He hinted that it was because I followed the exact algorithm Vogel outlined. I killed off all the least optimal cases. But evolution overall does better when there you allow some of the nonoptimal entities to breed. Here is the perfect demonstration of why diversity is important. It's not proof. It's not even evidence, really. It's just something that makes me understand that "randomness" isn't what I thought it was - and THAT is one of the great things, it seems, that sticks in most peoples' craws.

I don't expect you to change your mind. And I'm sure we would be friendly adversaries were we to sit across a coffee table.

I could meet you and after a short while come to understand and appreciate your virtues - the things you are good at, the things you understand and believe in. And I could respect and love you for these virtues - and believe to my core that you are a smart and good person. But I can predict already that your knowledge of evolution isn't among those virtues.

Top
#13158 - 09/13/05 12:54 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
BTW, I used to be a Baptist and a creationist.

In middle school I frequently argued with proclaimed atheists.

By end of HS, I was pretty much confused by the issue and had no firm opinion on the subject, believing as many creatonists assert that evolution and creationism were both equal theories.

Then I got hung up on an issue - thermodynamics - that seemed to refute evolution. But when I looked into it, I discovered that not only was it not an issue, but that the creationists had grossly misrepresented the subject. I was furious at the deceit and resolved to look into other things. The entire case of creationism is not based on evidence for it, on disproofs of evolution. In case after case I examined on the subject, I discovered that they had misrepresented things - often in very sneaky ways.

I have come over the years to see them as divided into two groups: the intelligentsia and the common creationist. The "lay" creationist is just like I was at one time - deluded into thinking he understood what he did not. They are honest, but mistaken. And don't know enough to figure out they're mistaken. The creationist intelligentsia, however, is really, imo, a bunch of liars.

Many of my fellow evolutionists think I'm being melodramatic - they think these guys are just incompetent. I agree that most of them are speaking beyond their areas of expertise. But I'm convinced they have made a conscious and calculated attempt to deceive people who trust them.

Top
#13159 - 09/13/05 12:57 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Evolution is non-linear.
Evolution does not always follow problem-solution approach.
Sometimes it is just a result of wishful thinking or a weird dream.
Falling apple is not a problem for most of us.. but to some it is a big problem.

pls send me your steps in evolutionary biology(or its simulation).

Top
#13160 - 09/13/05 01:27 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


AND WHAT EVOLVES FIRST IS NOT PHYSICALITY OF EXISTENCE BUT THE IDEA OR THOUGHT(As understood by life which is not necessarily(or only) digital) .... what evolves is understanding of self and surroundings...Thanks Fallible for your kind remarks.

Top
#13161 - 09/13/05 01:55 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"pls send me your steps in evolutionary biology(or its simulation)"

I'm not sure if you're talking to me. I actually was looking to see if I still had the code somewhere. I'm unable to find it so far. But the algorithm is pretty simple - as I said it was outlined in an article by David Fogel in IEEE Spectrum.

"What is evolutionary computation?"
Fogel, D.B.; Spectrum, IEEE
Volume 37, Issue 2, Feb. 2000 Page(s):26, 28-32

The general algorithm he gives is:
Initialize the population
Create offspring through random variation
Evaluate the Fitness of each candidate solution
Apply Selection

I'd offer to write the program again and send it to you, but I'm kinda busy at the moment. It's surprisingly easy, though, if you'd like to give it a try. Take a look at the article - everything you need is in there.

(Again - I don't claim it's proof of anything. It's just an illustrative tool to help understand the possibilities of 'random' variations in populations acting under constraints.)

Top
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.