Noah's Flood...
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
if you are talking to me, then yes. i have opposed many projects taken up by my undergrad alma matar and would not mindlessly go along with their plans. needless to say, i am persona non grata among that particular group.You really are out of step with the powers-that-be, aren't you?
religion yes, true christianity --no. i say true christianity because a lot that passes for christianity in general really isn't following ChristReligion is about blindly believing whatever these phony holy joes tell their followers
yes, Islam is a good example of this, Jim Jones is another, the cult that committed mass suicide a few years is another. i doubt if you could get christians to kill themselves but to kill others there are a few fanatics that would do that (the inquisition is a prime example, eric rudolph is another)How else do you get people to strap themselves with dynamite and blow themselves to kingdom come?
for me, though i disagree with dever and finkelstein and other minimalists, i do it based upon many factors not just because the Bible says so. the Bible tells us to be able to give an answer for why we believe and i can't do that if i am a mindless robot.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
needless to say, i am persona non grata among that particular group.
Be happy that you are not living a few hundred years earlier...your 'good christians' would have burned you at the stake.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
More on the so-called "ark."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-ark.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-ark.html
Bridge, the Oxford timber specialist, points out that it would also be impossible for a boat to run aground at 13,000 feet.
"If you put all the water in the world together, melting both the ice caps and all the glaciers, you still wouldn't reach anywhere near the top of the mountain," he said.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Two problems:
1. The scientists are using math to determine how high all the available water on earth would reach and, as we all know, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are fallible.
2. These pesky scientists aren't allowing for a miracle when it comes to how much water is actually available on the earth.
You can just mail me a check Arch.
1. The scientists are using math to determine how high all the available water on earth would reach and, as we all know, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are fallible.
2. These pesky scientists aren't allowing for a miracle when it comes to how much water is actually available on the earth.
You can just mail me a check Arch.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? - Sagan
-
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: Tennessee
been through this before, heard it a dozen times, it is redundent and yes coming only from a human perspective. you are missing a vital piece of data in that statement.Quote:
Bridge, the Oxford timber specialist, points out that it would also be impossible for a boat to run aground at 13,000 feet.
"If you put all the water in the world together, melting both the ice caps and all the glaciers, you still wouldn't reach anywhere near the top of the mountain," he said.
those pesky scientists aren't reading or including all the sources of water.These pesky scientists aren't allowing for a miracle when it comes to how much water is actually available on the earth
and you say i have blind faith, that is a prime example of blind faith in the fallible. numbers do not cover everything especially when free will is not within math's control.If it can't be expressed in figures, it's not fact it's theory."
nor can math predict what people will do when they have faith. math is limited.
shall i send him a copy? but then again those remarks sound a lot like arrogance is alive and well in the physics and math departments.If my former physics instructor heard me say that, even in jest, he would turn bright red and likely explode on the spot.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
nor can math predict what people will do when they have faith.
Usually they beat the shit out of people who have different faiths. And that is an almost mathematical certainty.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
the passage also talks about the fountains of the deep and since we have no idea how much water is under the earth, it remains a strong possibility.
so limiting one's research does not present the full picture and the conclusion become erroneous (let's not forget a theory of how much mositure is actually in the air as well).
when math and science fail to go beyond certain parameters, then their gathering of data is not complete, especially if they are limited to human logic and understanding which would nullify any objectivity, by the way.
those words limit his data right there, he is focused only on the amount of water physically on the earth, i think one would need to factor in the amount of water already present in the clouds.all the available water on earth
so limiting one's research does not present the full picture and the conclusion become erroneous (let's not forget a theory of how much mositure is actually in the air as well).
when math and science fail to go beyond certain parameters, then their gathering of data is not complete, especially if they are limited to human logic and understanding which would nullify any objectivity, by the way.
Yes. They are missing the magic, as I already said. I'm beating you to the punch.archaeologist wrote:been through this before, heard it a dozen times, it is redundent and yes coming only from a human perspective. you are missing a vital piece of data in that statement.Quote:
Bridge, the Oxford timber specialist, points out that it would also be impossible for a boat to run aground at 13,000 feet.
"If you put all the water in the world together, melting both the ice caps and all the glaciers, you still wouldn't reach anywhere near the top of the mountain," he said.
Which sources are they missing? Be explicit.archaeologist wrote:those pesky scientists aren't reading or including all the sources of water.These pesky scientists aren't allowing for a miracle when it comes to how much water is actually available on the earth
So what you are saying is that math is not fallible but that math can be applied incorrectly?archaeologist wrote:and you say i have blind faith, that is a prime example of blind faith in the fallible. numbers do not cover everything especially when free will is not within math's control.If it can't be expressed in figures, it's not fact it's theory."
Classic case of a little knowledge in the hands of the incompetent. It's obvious you have difficulty separating fiction from non-fiction, but trust me on this one: Hari Seldon was a fictional character and there is no such thing as psychohistory.archaeologist wrote:[nor can math predict what people will do when they have faith. math is limited.
Sure, if you'd like. He is retired from teaching now but the last I knew he still spends his summers at NASA/Ames hunting NEOs.archaeologist wrote:shall i send him a copy? but then again those remarks sound a lot like arrogance is alive and well in the physics and math departments.If my former physics instructor heard me say that, even in jest, he would turn bright red and likely explode on the spot.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? - Sagan
They are missing the magic
why do you have to go to the personal attack? this could have been a nice discussion. you and it seems others have the same type of blind faith in math, that minimalist accuses christians of having in the Bible.Classic case of a little knowledge in the hands of the incompetent. It's obvious you have difficulty separating fiction from non-fiction
you feel that math can do everything but guess what..it can't. as an example, when a spaceship is sent into space, math can only calculate the probability that it won't be hit by an asteroid, it cannot say for 100% positive that it won't be. BY EXPERIENCE NOT MATH we know that the odds of being hit are slim.
math cannot predict freedom of choice nor can it control free will nor the giving into temptation, it can only give the probability of an action based upon a control set of previous actions and has no way of factoring in future ones given the mitigating influences that go along with that freedom.
this is why scientists and mathematicians are surprised and confounded when things do not work according to their calculations. einstein so believed in his formulas it is said he declared nature is wrong because the formula is right. what arrogance and ridiculousness. (paraphrase of the quote)
actually i don't have difficulty separating fact from fiction, it is those who limit their understanding, their logic, their perceptions that fail to grasp the innumerable avenues of and solutions to problems.
are you sure you wrote it correctly as it makes no sense whatsoever especially when you place it next to my quote.So what you are saying is that math is not fallible but that math can be applied incorrectly?
-
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: Tennessee
Arch, why is it that every discussion with you turns into "fruit salad." You seem to like to mix apples and oranges then say they are the same because they are both fruit. Math and free will are not the same thing, in fact they're not even both fruit. Math deals with the tangible, whereas free-will deals with the elusive. That's why the bible is so off. It's perceived truth deals only with what cannot be proven. That's why you stick to the same old argument ad nauseum.
i am not comparing apples and oranges, i am demonstrating the limitation of mat, just like science, then showing that those people who like those areas display and use the same faith that most christians use with the Bible.why is it that every discussion with you turns into "fruit salad
math is like other sciences, it is a tool not the definitive answer mechanism. it is fallible and not all encompassing or all comprehensive. this does not take away its value but puts it in its proper place.
you have it backwards. the Bible isn't off and it doesn't have to conform to man but the reverse. the limitations placed on math do not allow it to take into account that which it cannot understand or define. math is not infallible nor canit give 100% of the answers that lie outside its territory. yes it can do so for addition, subtraction, etc., but when it attempts to rule over that which is outside its authority, then its weakness is exposed.That's why the bible is so off
again, i am not putting down math or science but trying to get you to see the proper place for each and that is, they are just limited tools which aid us in understanding and knowing what is going on in the world.
putting them beyond their 'talents' leads to problems and false information and that is wrong.
Don't confuse attacks with statements of fact. Math is simply a tool, not a religion. That's the problem with people like you. You transfer your religious hysteria to everyone else and assume that everyone else views science with the same religious zeal that you view your religion. It's a limitation in your world view.archaeologist wrote:They are missing the magicwhy do you have to go to the personal attack? this could have been a nice discussion. you and it seems others have the same type of blind faith in math, that minimalist accuses christians of having in the Bible.Classic case of a little knowledge in the hands of the incompetent. It's obvious you have difficulty separating fiction from non-fiction
Thank you Captain Obvious. See my note above.archaeologist wrote:you feel that math can do everything but guess what..it can't. as an example, when a spaceship is sent into space, math can only calculate the probability that it won't be hit by an asteroid, it cannot say for 100% positive that it won't be. BY EXPERIENCE NOT MATH we know that the odds of being hit are slim.
Obviously.archaeologist wrote:math cannot predict freedom of choice nor can it control free will nor the giving into temptation, it can only give the probability of an action based upon a control set of previous actions and has no way of factoring in future ones given the mitigating influences that go along with that freedom.
Some people feel that magic is an acceptable solution when other solutions are too difficult or too slow in the coming. Some people do not.archaeologist wrote:this is why scientists and mathematicians are surprised and confounded when things do not work according to their calculations. einstein so believed in his formulas it is said he declared nature is wrong because the formula is right. what arrogance and ridiculousness. (paraphrase of the quote)
actually i don't have difficulty separating fact from fiction, it is those who limit their understanding, their logic, their perceptions that fail to grasp the innumerable avenues of and solutions to problems.
I'm quite sure.archaeologist wrote:are you sure you wrote it correctly as it makes no sense whatsoever especially when you place it next to my quote.So what you are saying is that math is not fallible but that math can be applied incorrectly?
I think we agree that any tool can be used and/or misused. The creationist's habit of misusing science to justify their own bizarre theories is well known for instance. The place we disagree is on what constitutes viable and useful knowledge and what methods are universally useful in its attainment. In short, the knowledge that makes it through the error-correcting machinery of science is useful to everyone. The knowledge that is attained via faith, mystical works, and tales of magic is only of use to the believer in the magic.
The tragedy of religion is that when the scientific method can't be applied to something, the religous abandon their incredulity and reach out for any answer that satisifies their child-like desire to have answers NOW. In essence, it reduces the believer to little more than a baby with a pacifier.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? - Sagan