Science and Religion.

[william]

My name is William II and I am a Writer, Composer, Artist, Full-time Bible student, and Critical thinker on subjects pertaining to Science, Modern Technology, Music, History, Physic’s, and all early Cartography.
For some time now I have been eagerly engaged in extensive research of Cosmology, Chemistry, Bible research, and all or most of the known theories shared among scientists today; whether largely based upon observation or otherwise. In researching the expansion of the universe, Supernova, CMBR, the Big Crunch, String Theories, The Big Bang and other variations of this topic, it all seems to go back to the questions everybody else seems to be asking:
a) What makes everything work the way it does?
b) What lies in the great beyond?
c) What happened in the beginning? What can we expect in the future?
More importantly, I have been asked: ‘Why is Scientific knowledge far removed from the Bible?’ Yes, a growing interest in many people today has prompted the question of why Science has yet to explore the thought of a designer, a higher intelligence.....A Creator.
Although much intensive research has been done through the years on the Inflationary Universe, Hubble’s Velocity/law, Doppler Red shifts and Cosmological Red shifts, Dark Matter, Magnitude and distance of stars and planets, e.t.c...e.t.c...e.t.c...... Yet, I am still curious as to why Cosmologists rarely (nor honorably) mention any sort of study of the Holy Scriptures which explain who is responsible for such demonstrations of power, order, and magnificence? Surely it must inspire some feeling of awe in the hearts and minds of all those who ponder and dissect the observable universe above. Was it written to finding out whether Einstein or (fill in the blank) is right in his observation’s? Is there not some redeeming value, this despite the fact that it does not unveil the elusive mystery of SNV’s, the first 3 seconds, or (fill in the blank) ?
If a Bible is available to you at this moment, please read for yourself some of the evidence which points to a Designer. In the 7 Scriptures following this sentence, it say’s that God, Jehovah, is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, tent cloth, or curtain. We can all picture what that would look like if one were to stretch out a fine gauze in front of your eyes. Now, taken into the context of this very thought, from Genesis chapter 1 to Zechariah 12:1 all reveal that God created the luminaries and the expanse in the heavens; the very same heaven’s that He himself is causing to stretch, or expand above our heads. Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1.
Now I know these may not satisfy every curiosity of science, but it does establish the fact that someone is responsible. The Bible is the oldest book ever written dating all the way back to the time of Moses well over 3,500 years ago. If the Bible can be consistent where science can not, whose observations should we really lean upon- Man’s or the Designer Himself?
a) Long before Christopher Columbus and other explorers discovered that the earth was round many of the then known scientists at the time really believed that it was flat; yet in Isaiah 40:22 which was written a. 732 B.C.E. tell's us it was round.
b) People also held that the earth was held up by a turtle, and elephant or a God, yet Job 26:7 which was written C. 1473 B.C.E. explains that the earth is 'hanging upon nothing.'
c) Ecclesiastes 1:6,7 written b.1000 B.C.E. tells us that the wind is continually circling around the earth, and right back to its circlings it is returning. - and that the water returns to the clouds after it has gone to the sea. This fact is obvious to us now, but what did Scientist believe when this book was written?
d) When ancient physicians of long ago did not fully understand how disease spreads, nor realize the importance of sanitation in preventing sickness; Deuteronomy 23:13 included sanitary regulations that were far ahead of their time. We say this because all you have to do is look at the people who lived during that time period. The Egyptians practiced unsafe medicine by utilizing excrement for medicinal purposes. Other national groups such as the Assyrians and the Babylonians also exhibited unsafe and oftentimes vile, inhumane practices which were largely steeped in spiritism and ritualistic practices. So the direction given to the Israelites through Moses was vastly different. It stark contrast, they maintained cleaner, healthier standards of living which posed the least amount of risk to all those under it’s regulations.
There were also other sanitary regulations that safeguarded the Israelites from the spread of infectious diseases. A person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined. (Leviticus 13:1-5) Garments or vessels that came in contact with an animal that had died of itself (perhaps from disease) were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed. (Leviticus 11:27, 28, 32, 33) Any person who touched a corpse was considered unclean and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included washing his garments and bathing. During the seven-day period of uncleanness, he was to avoid physical contact with others.—Numbers 19:1-13.
The same cannot be said about the other surrounding nations who had frequent contact with corpses of those already dead. Yes, Thousands of years before medical science learned about the ways in which disease spreads, the Bible prescribed reasonable preventive measures as safeguards against disease. And yet the Bible is still reliable today. But do people regard it as such? Does Science?
e) When scholars disputed the destruction of the ancient city of Jericho, located on the west side of the great Rift Valley; Archaeology later confirmed the Bible account of the destruction of the city. Excavations began at Jericho in 1930. Excavators found that the double walls surrounding the city had fallen down the slope as if toppled by an earthquake or some other unseen force. Houses had been built on rafters that bridged the tops of the two walls and in one section part of the wall stood and could have been where Rahab’s house had been preserved in the Biblical catastrophe. The excavators found evidence of intense fire. The city had been burned. This was no ordinary burning, because the layer of ashes was unusually thick and it appeared that all available fuel had been gathered to accomplish a thorough destruction. The city had not been looted, neither had there been any substantial rebuilding of the city until hundreds of years thereafter, about the time of King Ahab, when the Bible tells us that it was rebuilt. Today you can go to the Rift Valley, to the site of the excavations of the ruins of that ancient city of Jericho and see this archaeological support of the Bible account in Joshua chapter 6.
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, director and principal librarian of the British Museum for many years once said: '...archaeology has rendered the Bible "more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting." This, of course, after one has already read it in order to make this determination.
Granted, the Bible contains statements that cannot be proved or disproved by available physical evidence. But that is because it is not a science textbook. It is, however, a book of truth. And when it touches on matters related to science, it's words are accurate and completely free from ancient "scientific" theories that turned out to be mere myths. Science is thus no enemy of the Bible, and neither should we.
To conclude this thought I can’t encourage you enough to ‘look and see’ for yourself that there is more than mere ‘substance’ to what the Holy Scriptures say. Through a thorough, meaningful study of the Bible you can learn the answers to questions such as:
What is the purpose of life?
Why does God permit suffering?
Why do we grow old and die?
What Hope for the future?
What does God require?
So no matter where our keen observations lead us, let us never forget that there are greater issues right here on earth. No matter how much we gaze into the clouds and wonder at all that lies above us, in the final analysis we still have to live with the thought that perhaps we may not have listened to the Designer, our Creator. That maybe we might’ve overlooked one major detail in our personal research which could have resulted in a richer, more meaningful, satisfying way of life.
But the question is this: Will you accept the invitation that is being extended in more that 234 lands throughout the earth today? Globally, over 6,000,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses are actively involved in preaching and teaching a sure hope for mankind based solidly on the Hope contained in the Bible. For Ecclesiastes 3:11 reminds us: “Everything [God] has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
Truly, it is implanted in the heart of man to try to find out the meaning of “time indefinite,” that is, eternity. But can he ever attain such knowledge?
-William Ward II

[BoulderHead`]

Oh, this is going to be a special feature !

*sits back and munches on popcorn*

[Dancing David]

Welcome to the forum William, I see no need for a Designer, it helps me understand why there is evil in the world.(Otherwise I would have to believe that god wants us to suffer, 14 million children to die each year, and for men to beat thier partners.)

That was a weighty post fraught with meaning and questions.

What do you feel is present that suggests there is a creator?

Could there be multiple paths to human salvation?

[william]

Both science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe which contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. The Bible, points the way to new meaningful discoveries by teaching the mind of the designer, the Creator, through the things he has created, and through His Divinely Inspired Word, the Bible.
Recent mapping of the human genetic code raises the questions: How were the multitudes of life-forms created? And who, if anyone, created them?
One of the chief scientists involved in the genetic decoding humbly remarked: “We have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” But the questions persist—how and why?
Yes, science has continued to provide us with insights into the observable physical universe. But no matter how far scientific investigation goes, it can never answer the question of purpose—why the universe exists in the first place.
Author Tom Utley: "It may be that the Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago. But why did it happen? . . . How did the particles get there in the first place? What was there before?” Utley concludes: “It seems . . . clearer than ever that science will never satisfy the human hunger for answers.” But are there satisfying answers to questions like these?
In answering the question of why and in dealing with the purpose of life, the Bible itself, offers standards for values, morals, and ethics as well as guidance in life. Scientist Allan Sandage expressed it this way: “I don’t go to a biology book to learn how to live.”
So in learning the values and principles contained in the Bible we gain deep insight into the knowledge that leads to life as described for us in John 17:3.
“The universe had a beginning but what scientists can’t explain is why. The answer is God.” “I see the Bible as a book of truth and divinely inspired. There has to be an intelligence behind the complexity of life.”—Ken Tanaka, planetary geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey.

“The gap between the various kinds of knowledge (scientific and religious) is rather artificial. . . . Knowledge about the Creator and knowledge about creation are closely related.”—Enrique Hernández, researcher and professor at the Department of Physics and Theoretical Chemistry, National Autonomous University of Mexico.

“As we develop all this information [about the human genome], it will reveal the complexity, the interdependence of all this material. It will point to the origin as the result of an intelligent creator, an intelligent agent.”—Duane T. Gish, biochemist.

“There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.”—D.H.R. Barton, professor of chemistry, Texas.

On this issue, Romans 1:20 say's: For his invisible (qualities) are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable....."

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe which contains distinctive marks of intelligent design.

Where? What evidence do you have for this design? What evidence do you have for this designer?

[DaveW]

Welcome, William. Noce post. Couple of things I picked up on and wanted to ask/comment on:

What particular things have led you to see a design requiring a creator?

What are you using as your source for the age of the bible? The oldest known fragment seems to have been dated at merely 100BCE. Quite old, but not 3500 years ago (which would still not make it the oldest book, arguably).

You mentioned things in the bible that jive with science, and things that are most likely to remain indeterminate with regard to science, but what of the things that have been shown false with science?

What makes the Bible more correct than, say, the Talmud, or the Quran?

[wildflower1]

Thought that I walked into the wrong room for a minute...

*scratches head, peers around quizzically*

[william]

To addess some of the posts:
To Dave W: The oldest portion of the Bible predates all of the world’s other religious writings.
The Torah, or first five books of the Bible, which is the Law written under inspiration by Moses, dates back to the 15th and 16th centuries B.C.E. By comparison, the Hindu writings of the Rig-Veda (a collection of hymns) were completed about 900 B.C.E. and do not claim divine inspiration.
To articulate this thought.......Bible archaeology is the study of the peoples and events of Bible times through writings, implements, buildings, and other remains that are found in the earth. The search for ancient remains, or artifacts, at ancient Bible locations has involved much exploration and the moving of millions of tons of dirt. An artifact is any object that shows human workmanship and that gives evidence of man’s activity and life. Artifacts may include such items as pottery, ruins of buildings, clay tablets, written inscriptions, documents, monuments, and chronicles recorded on stone.
By the early 20th century, archaeology had been developed into a careful field of study, with expeditions to Bible lands being sponsored by major universities and museums in Europe and America. As a result, archaeologists have uncovered a wealth of information that sheds light on the way things were in Bible times. Sometimes archaeological finds have demonstrated the Bible’s authenticity, showing its accuracy right down to the tiniest detail.
Writing in The Union Bible Companion, S. Austin Allibone says: “Sir Isaac Newton . . . was also eminent as a critic of ancient writings, and examined with great care the Holy Scriptures. What is his verdict on this point? ‘I find,’ says he, ‘more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament than in any profane [secular] history whatever.’
Many other writers have also commented on the remarkable accuracy of the Bible description of the Promised Land and neighboring territories. As an example, an Oriental traveler, Dr. A. P. Stanley, said concerning the Israelites’ wilderness trek: “Even if their precise route were unknown, yet the peculiar features of the country have so much in common that the history would still receive many remarkable illustrations. . . . The occasional springs, and wells, and brooks, are in accordance with the notices of the ‘waters’ of Marah; the ‘springs’ of . . . Elim; the ‘brook’ of Horeb; the ‘well’ of Jethro’s daughters, with its ‘trough’ or tanks, in Midian. The vegetation is still that which we should infer from the Mosaic history.” In the account of Egypt, the accuracy is seen not only in the general description of the territory—its rich grain lands, its Nile River edged with reeds (Genesis 41:47-49; Exodus 2:3), its waters derived from ‘rivers, canals, reedy pools, and impounded waters’ (Exodus 7:19), its ‘flax, barley, wheat, and spelt’ (Exodus 9:31, 32)—but also in the names and sites of towns.
Though the Bible is not a treatise on science, where it touches on scientific matters, it is found to be accurate and in harmony with true scientific discovery and knowledge. Its record of the order of creation, including animal life, the earth’s being round, or spherical (Isa. 40:22); and the earth’s hanging in space on “nothing” antedate scientific discoveries of these truths. (Job 26:7) Modern physiology has demonstrated the truth of the Scriptural statement that “not all flesh is the same flesh,” the cellular structure of the flesh of one kind being different from that of another, man having his own unique “flesh.” (1 Cor. 15:39)
In the field of zoology, Leviticus 11:6 classes the hare with the cud-chewing animals. This was once scoffed at, but science now finds that the rabbit reingests its food.
The list of evidences can literally go on about the authenticity of the Bible in these ways:
1. Historicity
2. Canonicity
3. Geographical and Geological evidence
4. It’s Scientific accuracy
5. Practicality and the Harmony amongst the Bible writers.
For more information which proves the authenticity of the Bible that is both reliable and solidly based upon fact, don’t take my word, research it.

To Dancing David: If there is a God why does he allow so much suffering in the world? You can learn the answer to this question by reading the Bible. Here you will learn that there are greatest issues involved to the issue of Sovereignty; i.e. God’s right to rule over man. This issue was raised in the garden of Eden when the Devil Satan seduced Eve into disobeying God by eating of the fruit they were asked not to partake from. Any one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in your are would be glad to sit down with you and show you in your own personal copy of the Bible how this is a scripturally sound teaching. You can read about part of this in Genesis chapter 3.
You also had put the question: Could there be multiple paths to human salvation? This question has been raised by many pondering, thinking individuals who have a sincere desire to understand which proverbial road leads to happiness, salvation, for a secure future. Again, the answer is found in the Bible. There is so much to be learned from the things that Jesus taught. In particular, he said in Matthew 7:13,14: “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

To Bill Hoyt: Evidence of a designer is found when you give research the things that we see around us. The structure of the eye reveals marvelous design, and the process by which the brain interprets what is transmitted through the eye is far from being understood by scientists. Every second some 100 million bits of information pour into the brain from the various senses.
In the brain stem there is a network of nerves the size of your little finger. This network is called the reticular formation. It acts as a kind of traffic control center, monitoring the millions of messages coming into the brain, sifting out the trivial and selecting the essential for attention by the cerebral cortex. Each second this little network of nerves permits only a few hundred, at most, to enter the conscious mind.
A further pinpointing of our attention seems to come about by waves that sweep the brain 8 to 12 times per second. These waves cause periods of high sensitivity, during which the brain notes the stronger signals and acts upon them. It is believed that by means of these waves the brain scans itself, in this way focusing on the essentials. Thus an amazing flurry of activity is going on in our heads every second!
Three weeks after conception brain cells start forming. They grow in spurts, at times up to 250,000 cells a minute. After birth the brain continues growing and forming its network of connections. The gulf separating the human brain from that of any animal quickly manifests itself: “The brain of the human infant, unlike that of any other animal, triples in size during its first year,” states the book The Universe Within. In time, about 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons, as well as other types of cells, are packed into a human brain, although it makes up only 2 percent of the body’s weight.
The key brain cells—the neurons—do not actually touch one another. They are separated by synapses, tiny spaces less than one millionth of an inch across. These gaps are bridged by chemicals called neurotransmitters, 30 of which are known, but the brain may possess many more. These chemical signals are received at one end of the neuron by a maze of tiny filaments called dendrites. The signals are then transmitted at the other end of the neuron by a nerve fiber called an axon. In the neurons the signals are electrical, but across the gaps they are chemical. Thus the transmission of nerve signals is electrochemical in nature. Each impulse is of the same strength, but the intensity of the signal depends upon the frequency of the impulses, which may be as high as one thousand a second.
Carl Sagan states that the brain could hold information that “would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries.”
Consider, too, the unique blood system that transports nutrients and oxygen and protects against infection. Regarding the red blood cells, a main component of this system, the book ABC’s of the Human Body states: “A single drop of blood contains more than 250 million separate blood cells . . . The body contains perhaps 25 trillion of them, enough, if spread out, to cover four tennis courts. . . . Replacements are made, at a rate of 3 million new cells every second.”
The Bible states: “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists.” (Hebrews 3:4, The Jerusalem Bible) Since any house, however simple, must have a builder, then the far more complex universe, along with the vast varieties of life on earth, must also have had a builder. And since we acknowledge the existence of humans who invented devices such as airplanes, televisions, and computers, should we not also acknowledge the existence of the One who gave humans the brain to make such things?

To wildflower1:I would be surprised too. In fact, I will be honest.....When I registered with this site, I thought it was strictly a science/physics related forum. I did not see the header at the top of the web page. So I apologize if I seem to be a sore thumb here. That was not my intended purpose I assure you. Honorably, I have asked your webmaster to remove me from the thread because I don’t want to create conflict among it’s members. I have the highest respect for your space here.
My goal though is to encourage serious, meditative thinking about what we learn from Creation. Read the Bible. As you grow as researchers, students, or (fill in the blank) your curiosity for learning new things will grow. And unfortunately because I cannot teach you everything you need to know about Life, you’ll have to do your own research in order to be convinced that there is a Creator, based upon what your findings tell you. But you have to be impartial, and avid that. Because as you already know, not everyone will agree with you. I have seen this in my case, and not everyone is as friendly as you 5 have been.
So as I bow out gracefully, I thank you all for letting me share with you.
William II.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by william
Its record of the order of creation, including animal life, the earth’s being round, or spherical (Isa. 40:22); and the earth’s hanging in space on “nothing” antedate scientific discoveries of these truths. (Job 26:7)

I think you need to actually read Genesis to see two completely different descriptions of the "order of creation."

Quote:

Modern physiology has demonstrated the truth of the Scriptural statement that “not all flesh is the same flesh,” the cellular structure of the flesh of one kind being different from that of another, man having his own unique “flesh.” (1 Cor. 15:39)

As does every hunter who know the same recipe doesn't work with different game or who noticed the meat of fowl differs from the meat of fish. If this is offered as divinely-inspired Biblical insight, then God needs a new optometrist.

Quote:

In the field of zoology, Leviticus 11:6 classes the hare with the cud-chewing animals. This was once scoffed at, but science now finds that the rabbit reingests its food.

Please give me a break here. The rabbit eats its poop. The cow regurgitates. Completely different processes. This apologetics is really reaching low, sir. Why not simply say "hey, they both have four legs and a tail." Sheesh.

Quote:

The list of evidences can literally go on about the authenticity of the Bible in these ways:
1. Historicity
2. Canonicity
3. Geographical and Geological evidence
4. It’s Scientific accuracy
5. Practicality and the Harmony amongst the Bible writers.
For more information which proves the authenticity of the Bible that is both reliable and solidly based upon fact, don’t take my word, research it.

I've just demonstrated that you need to research it. Your posts are riddled with errors of fact, both scientific and biblical.

Quote:

To Bill Hoyt: Evidence of a designer is found when you give research the things that we see around us. The structure of the eye reveals marvelous design, and the process by which the brain interprets what is transmitted through the eye is far from being understood by scientists. Every second some 100 million bits of information pour into the brain from the various senses.

So? So? So? This is an argument from ignorance and argument from marvel. How is any of this distinguished from results of evolution?

Quote:

In the brain stem there is a network of nerves the size of your little finger. This network is called the reticular formation. It acts as a kind of traffic control center, monitoring the millions of messages coming into the brain, sifting out the trivial and selecting the essential for attention by the cerebral cortex. Each second this little network of nerves permits only a few hundred, at most, to enter the conscious mind.

So? All mammals have a reticular formation. How does its existence point to a designer and not evolution?

Quote:

A further pinpointing of our attention seems to come about by waves that sweep the brain 8 to 12 times per second. These waves cause periods of high sensitivity, during which the brain notes the stronger signals and acts upon them. It is believed that by means of these waves the brain scans itself, in this way focusing on the essentials. Thus an amazing flurry of activity is going on in our heads every second!

So? Where is the distinction between evolution and special creation?

Quote:

Three weeks after conception brain cells start forming. They grow in spurts, at times up to 250,000 cells a minute. After birth the brain continues growing and forming its network of connections. The gulf separating the human brain from that of any animal quickly manifests itself: “The brain of the human infant, unlike that of any other animal, triples in size during its first year,” states the book The Universe Within. In time, about 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons, as well as other types of cells, are packed into a human brain, although it makes up only 2 percent of the body’s weight.
The key brain cells—the neurons—do not actually touch one another. They are separated by synapses, tiny spaces less than one millionth of an inch across. These gaps are bridged by chemicals called neurotransmitters, 30 of which are known, but the brain may possess many more. These chemical signals are received at one end of the neuron by a maze of tiny filaments called dendrites. The signals are then transmitted at the other end of the neuron by a nerve fiber called an axon. In the neurons the signals are electrical, but across the gaps they are chemical. Thus the transmission of nerve signals is electrochemical in nature. Each impulse is of the same strength, but the intensity of the signal depends upon the frequency of the impulses, which may be as high as one thousand a second.

You can stop with this high-school version of embryology merged with anatomy and physiology. So what? What in here distinguishes between special creation and evolution?

Quote:

The Bible states: “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists.” (Hebrews 3:4, The Jerusalem Bible) Since any house, however simple, must have a builder, then the far more complex universe, along with the vast varieties of life on earth, must also have had a builder. And since we acknowledge the existence of humans who invented devices such as airplanes, televisions, and computers, should we not also acknowledge the existence of the One who gave humans the brain to make such things?

Finally, we get to the only meat in your argument. "Any house, however simple, must have a builder..." Who built God? You set up an infinite regress, but walk away satisfied that our houses must have had a builder, ergo that builder is God, but you shut down your logic there. God, your posited builder,, is also a house, by your logic and must, by your logic, also have a builder. God gotta daddy.

[DaveW]

I will still take issue with your claim that the bible is the oldest religious writings: Ancient Egyptians were scribing hieroglyphs around 4200BC. I would find it hard to believe that a culture as steeped in mysticism and their gods as ancient Egypt was wouldn't write down the stories of their gods for over 2600 years.

Your argument for the "design" is... well.. I don't know the technical logical fallacy, so let's just say it's unconvincing since you stated no evidence, only appealed to the beauty of the "design".

Also, could you address my other points?

Quote:

You mentioned things in the bible that jive with science, and things that are most likely to remain indeterminate with regard to science, but what of the things that have been shown false with science?

What makes the Bible more correct than, say, the Talmud, or the Quran?

[Quasi]

In addition to the responses posted, due to the fact that life can be defined by chemistry, it pretty much makes free will, hence "sin" an irrelevant concept. Also, faith is a circular argument, and it is not necessary to presuppose a higher being. This is discussed here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
As someone who studied the Bible in the past, I recommend you also study the criticisms of the Bible. Apart from its staggering lack of predictive powers, the Bible also contains many factual errors (currency mentioned in the book of Kings was not minted until several hundred years after Christ died.) So you cannot say the Bible is truth a-priori IMHO.

[fishbob]

Quote:

Yet, I am still curious as to why Cosmologists rarely (nor honorably) mention any sort of study of the Holy Scriptures which explain who is responsible for such demonstrations of power, order, and magnificence?

1) Good start. Jump right in with an insult.

2) Cosmologists probably don't mention the Scriptures because the Scriptures have no relevant connection to Cosmology. If you twist real hard, some vague ancient writings can be made to seem sort of generally related to almost anything, but no value is added, no insight is gained, no advances in science are achieved. All you get is a headache and some derision.

[Anders]

Well, William's post is based on one basic lie. Basically, to understand what William is writing you have to believe that the bible is the writings of a supernatural being, something like the christian god. That is of course wrong; the bible is a pretty much a bad piece of fiction with a few passages of history, nothing more, nothing less. William could base his discussion on the writings of, let’s say, Nietzsche, and it would make as much sense.

To base a whole discourse, on that lie, like William does is a waste of time, and reading it was a waste of my time, which of course was my own fault.

Dear Regards,
Anders

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders
To base a whole discourse, on that lie, like William does is a waste of time, and reading it was a waste of my time, which of course was my own fault.

Dear Regards,
Anders

You're hardly alone in that, Anders.

[SGT]

William mentions as a proof of the existence of a designer:

Quote:

...The structure of the eye reveals marvelous design...

If one of my students made such a sloppy design as the human eye, he would get at most a C.
The nerves, that carry the information to the brain, are connected to the sensitive cells in the interior of the eye, so they block part of the light. Besides, as the brain is outside of the eye, the nerves must pass to the exterior of the organ, so there is a blind portion in the eye, where the nerves pass.
A good designer would have put the nerves at the external part of the eye. And don't say it would not work! Octopusses and sepias have their eyes constructed that way. It is a bad chance that we don't have these molluscs among our ancestors.

William,

There are 3 kinds of people:
those who can count & those who can't.

And this describes the average fundies understanding of basic
scientific facts, which obviously you fall into!

There are so many flaws and mistakes in the "design" of not only the human body but ALL of the animal kingdom that if there was a creator it must have been the likes Mo, Larry or Curly.

The eye issue has already been addressed, but what the hell is an appendics for? God one day said "hey, I'll just put this organ in here that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but if it breaks it'll KILL YOU! What en excellent idea! And the list could go on.

As for posting scripture on this board to justify any stance -
Are you masochistic or just plain old dumb!
1) There is NOT a single statement in the old OR new testament
that does not have another statement which directly contradicts it. Here is just one link for brevity
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/strike/
2) There is not a single statement of philosophy or theology that wasn't stolen from a previous culture.
From a single one true god which came from Achenotan
Who created one true invisible god represented by the sun.
Ever wonder why Christian saints have a halo (as in the Greek for the sun) around their heads?
To the virgin birth and baptism which was DIRECTLY taken from
Mithraism by Christians but was also paralleled in Hindu writings several 100 years before the alleged Christ. And again the list goes on.

[thaiboxerken]

Looks like we have another long-winded apologist in the forum. William, post some scientific evidence or shut up.

[thaiboxerken]

Both science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth.

False, science searches for truth. Religion pertains to dictate the truth and scold those that don't believe.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Both science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth.

False, science searches for truth. Religion pertains to dictate the truth and scold those that don't believe.

The activist form, at least, indeed.

I think William is a pure troll. Nobody who can write that much could be that illogical without some deliberation on his/her part.

[Keneke]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj

I think William is a pure troll. Nobody who can write that much could be that illogical without some deliberation on his/her part.

Apologies, but I totally disagree. When this mode of thought has been spoon-fed to you since birth, there's just no other way to think. Skepticism is not spontaneous in a person, by far.

As a former Christian, I see that this post is exactly the kind of rhetorical sparkle that soothed our pew-sitting souls. I consider myself a skeptic now, but it took me years of deprogramming to reach this place. I still feel an emotional reaction when those particular Protestant-based strings are pulled, and fear I will never be truly free of the brainwashing. This guy could quite conceivably be genuine.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Keneke
As a former Christian, I see that this post is exactly the kind of rhetorical sparkle that soothed our pew-sitting souls. I consider myself a skeptic now, but it took me years of deprogramming to reach this place. I still feel an emotional reaction when those particular Protestant-based strings are pulled, and fear I will never be truly free of the brainwashing. This guy could quite conceivably be genuine.

Well, I was raised by an enthusiastic Presbyterian, and was initially "brainwashed". I guess, though, it never took very well.

I'll accept your statement.

William,
Sorry, William.

On the other hand, William, consider how your statement came across, even though I will provisionally accord it sincerity.

[LettristLoon]

You know...

As a butt-plunging sodomite, I find Christians maybe more offensive than the average evangelical secular humanist might do. Yet...yet...

It seems to me that we must share the world with them--indeed, it's good that we share the world with them, as meaningful discourse with them will sharpen our logic or, if we should happen to be wrong in our secularly humanistic cosmologies, convert us, as they show us the Truth.

Cough!

Gag!

But I believe that, in order to have said meaningful discourse--in order to actually address their beliefs, and have some kind of serious discussion--we've gotta recognize them as human beings before we mark our intellectual territories by pissing gallons of vitriol on their haloed heads.

I mean, if we can't even be polite, kind, and genuinely communicative, then what genuine values have we acquired, for all of our rationality? What makes "us" better than "them?" The quality of our ideas?

Sorry, fellas--ideas must inform action, ideologically as well as intellectually. Be nice. You'll never change anyone's mind until you are.

Hey! William! If you're not gone, I have two fairly simple questions for you:

You say that the bible's writings are in accordance with modern scientific discoveries. In my opinion, the commonalities between scripture and science cited by you seem to be pretty superficial, but I could be wrong. Tell me: In your opinion, is it impossible that a book like the bible could have arisen without divine inspiration? If not, why?

Secondly: Humanity has been around a lot longer than patriarchal, monotheistic religions. If you believe in Adam and Eve and all of that, how is it that a few people in a desert managed to suddenly understand the truth about the first humans on the planet--who, at the very latest, walked the earth 243,000 years before Abraham decided to start a religion?

Zat's all.

Peace,
- B

[DrMatt]

Quote:

Originally posted by william
[b]My name is William II and I am a Writer, Composer, Artist, Full-time Bible student, and Critical thinker on subjects pertaining to Science, Modern Technology, Music, History, Physic’s, and all early Cartography.
For some time now I have been eagerly engaged in extensive research of Cosmology, Chemistry, Bible research, and all or most of the known theories shared among scientists today; whether largely based upon observation or otherwise. In researching the expansion of the universe, Supernova, CMBR, the Big Crunch, String Theories, The Big Bang and other variations of this topic, it all seems to go back to the questions everybody else seems to be asking:
a) What makes everything work the way it does?

Hang on a second. The question supposes that we already know how everything works. We don't, and finding THAT out is more interesting to many of us.

Quote:

b) What lies in the great beyond?

Great beyond what? Cosmologists and scientists are not using science to investigate things beyond the universe.

Quote:

c) What happened in the beginning? What can we expect in the future?

What do you mean, the beginning? The beginning of what? The universe contains background radiation and an overall redshift pattern which shows net momentum of galaxies away from each other, throughout the universe, and we can calculate a finite limit on when that momentum might have started and the energy which was left as that radiation might have initiated. Our descriptions of the physical world don't currently do a very good job of describing anything as massive as the masses at the centers of galaxies yet, so a description of the universe at the origin point of this extrapolated origin is quite beyond us, though slightly different descriptions of its state a few seconds later lead to drastically different descriptions of how the universe ought to look now, and thus can be tested against the universe now.

Science values predictions mainly for their ability to be checked against eventual outcomes. Such predictions as "what you will experience after you die", for instance, can't be checked and are not the domain of science.

Quote:

More importantly, I have been asked: ‘Why is Scientific knowledge far removed from the Bible?’

Richard Dawkins gave an answer which I think you'll find worth reading twice, and you can read it
]here (link to Dawkins essay).

Quote:

Yes, a growing interest in many people today has prompted the question of why Science has yet to explore the thought of a designer, a higher intelligence.....A Creator.

I urge you to read the writings of Charles Darwin and William of Occam. Science has devoted extensive efforts to exploring the thought of a creator and has found it wanting, and then has moved on to greener pastures.

[Riddick]

Welcome, William.

You'll find you're very unwelcome at JREF, however. These people despise any religious notion. They will be mean to you, make fun of you, resort to shouting "strawman!" and "ad hominem!" whenever they feel the ...rythmic urge.

You'll regret you ever came here in the first place. JREF people don't like you. Period. JREF membership is 92% Atheist. You'll also find that the significant majority of them are under 30. If you're fine with that, then, by all means, you're welcome here.

Have fun.

[Dancing David]

Kindly ignore the riddick troll, he is wrong as usual, can't get his facts straight about the bible, so what he says about the JREF is even more suspect.

I have mentioned religous beliefs many time on this board and I have never been ridiculed. Maybe the problem riddick is that you are a troll.

PS There are many scientists who are very religous and some even feel that there may be a god. But the design argument is not the one that they take, it is usualy more along the lines of an ultimate cause.

[Anders]

Quote:

Originally posted by Riddick
Welcome, William.
.... You'll also find that the significant majority of them are under 30....

Hey!! I'm 34! But, ok, I might look I'm 25, but you can't see that, now can you.

[jimlintott]

Maybe william is just the guy to answer this nagging question that I have.

Kindly define or describe what God or gods are so that I will know one (or them) if I ever encounter one (or more).

[Robin]

From Jimlintott:

Quote:

Kindly define or describe what God or gods are so that I will know one (or them) if I ever encounter one (or more).

I think William actually left some time ago. I hope it wasn't something we said.

However I will be happy to answer your question. God is the being Who created this Universe. If you meet someone Who created this Universe then he is almost certainly God.

I hope this helps. Can the last person to leave please turn the lights off?

[fishbob]

2 bits of advice:

1) Be nice until you get to know the folks here. Then you can flog them when they deserve it.

2) Be careful. If you get too close to Rid**** you might get smegged.

[dretceterini]

I'm not an athiest, but I do believe everything attributed to "an outside creative agent", generally called God, is innate in existance itself..

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by dretceterini
I'm not an athiest, but I do believe everything attributed to "an outside creative agent", generally called God, is innate in existance itself..

Do you feel that it could have been accidental or acausal? This seems to be a real issue for some.

I beleive it may even be an infinite recursion with no final cause.

[Robin]

Quote:

Originally posted by dretceterini
I'm not an athiest, but I do believe everything attributed to "an outside creative agent", generally called God, is innate in existance itself..

I would be interested in your reasoning. One objection is that if the above is true, then God also exists there must be an outside creative agent responsible for the existence of God. In short who created God?

If, on the other hand, God can exist without an outside creative agent, then uncreated existence is possible and therefore possible without God.

[dretceterini]

Maybe you are misunderstanding what I said; ie; there was no creation. Everything that exists is made up of energy, which ccan not be created nor destoyed...

[George]

posted by Riddick.

Welcome, William.

You'll find you're very unwelcome at JREF, however. These people despise any religious notion. They will be mean to you, make fun of you, resort to shouting "strawman!" and "ad hominem!" whenever they feel the ...rythmic urge.

You'll regret you ever came here in the first place. JREF people don't like you. Period. JREF membership is 92% Atheist. You'll also find that the significant majority of them are under 30. If you're fine with that, then, by all means, you're welcome here.

Riddick.

That post to a “newbie” is nothing short of disgusting.

Read the thread. The replies are courteous and civil. Some impatience was evident later but is this surprising considering some of his ideas are repeats of the same old nonsense that have been ripped to tatters countless times on this forum.

No one here is being belligerent in their replies, no one is saying ‘William you are wrong’ what people are saying is ‘show us why you think you are right’.

Now compare you’re nasty, hateful, poisonous little missive to the above posts.

Some good may come of this. I hope William will look up you’re past Er, musings. For he is sure to see the light!


How could God create an apparently functioning human being but with a brain cavity occupied entirely by compressed high quality, high density *****?

[George]

Sorry


Yes I should have reviewed that once more before I posted. I sound little better than Riddick. Mebbie it was a rhythmic urge.

My apologies to the forum.

[Marian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Riddick
Welcome, William.

You'll find you're very unwelcome at JREF, however. These people despise any religious notion. They will be mean to you, make fun of you, resort to shouting "strawman!" and "ad hominem!" whenever they feel the ...rythmic urge.

You'll regret you ever came here in the first place. JREF people don't like you. Period. JREF membership is 92% Atheist. You'll also find that the significant majority of them are under 30. If you're fine with that, then, by all means, you're welcome here.

Have fun.

I am agnostic and I am 32. Apparently I fit neither "majority" according to Riddick.

Where is your proof that 92% are atheist? That's a rather specific number, so I assume you have specific proof to demonstrate that statistic.

Where is your proof that the 'signifigant majority of them' are under 30?

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by George
Sorry


Yes I should have reviewed that once more before I posted. I sound little better than Riddick. Mebbie it was a rhythmic urge.

My apologies to the forum.

Hiya Beorge and welcome to the forum, your post was most civil and courteous, nothing to be ashamed of. Some of us apologise after that sort of statement as well. For sceptics the board is a very moderate bunh.

[chmara]

I propose to explain why the skeptical respondents in this line will loose in the longrun if they persist.

The nucleus of the reason can be found in Kimberly Blaker's "The Fundamentals of Extremism."

When you loudly confront fundamentalist beliefs -- you turn the discussion into a place where most humans will not feel comfortable. When humans uncomfortable -- communication stop.

There are many who do not accept the Bible or Koran as a definitive revelation of god's will -- but by attacking a fundamentalists view on bible inerrancy -- you make those people with some dou8bts VERY uncomfortable and defensive.

If a religious practitioner of any stripe or denomination wants to accept the idea the SOME truths in their scriptures are "tentative" they need to be encouraged, not put down or considered less intellegent or less modern or less human than anyone else.

These folks may be ill informed of fact, not acquainted with the proper use of hypothesis and theory as terms as opposed to scriptural "inerrancy" on various ideas. If they go beyond parotting a current doctrinal line verbatim that may show that someone, behind their trolling, is trying to rationalize the dissonance between their life of religion and their life in a world that has some pretty sound answers as to the mechanics of how things work, we need to help them broaden their horizons -- not shut them up.

Once -- like William -- about 35 or 40 years or so ago -- I tried to rationalize LDS (Mormon) beliefs with the scientific method, The only way that could be done was to use the intercession of a God at inexplicable times or in undocumented events. It was pretty much like the Roman Catholic Church that I grew up in (before Vatican II) in that view.

At that time the LDS church MOSTLY kept religion and politics separate. It MOSTLY also kept its religious views out of school curricula and preferred to assure the youth got a good education in religion on their own time. The Catholics had set up their own schools without governmental aid OR interference. .

The doctrines of inerrancy slowly started to creep into the mainstream consciousness of the general public for both Mormons and fundamentalists at the same time. Then Roe Vs. Wade welded their ideas with those of the Catholics as a SINGLE ISSUE (at that time) voting block. The powerful defeats they suffered now has welded together to push on more issues -- including educational funding.

With that insidious move to centrism of doctrinal issues, its authoritarinism and semantic loading along with distortion of facts - -- the ideas of exploration of new ideas and of using a "loyal opposition" for the benefit of all seemed to evaporate in large parts of our society, INCLUDING OURS,

By attacking those who may seem to troll or seek a " truth" that may appear to be more solid than a skeptic feels is healthy, or to discuss an item that we may not agree with, we too often bend OUR STANDARDS of allowing exploration and discourse on an idea. We thus strengthen the fundamentalists' search for a rock solid "something" he/she can cling to whether it be the Koran, Bible, Book of Mormon, the novels of L. Ron Hubbard, or the writings of Asimov. Then that person feels obligated to defend his position OR even worse, withdraw from the discourse.

We may not agree -- but to discuss openly our ideas is essential.

The battle is not between Skeptics and Christians. The battle is not between Athiests and Fundamentalists. It is not over the bible and science either. It is not between the educated and uneducated.

The true battle is between those who believe in a simple constitutional principle as first enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and carried forth until the 1950s. Their battle since the McCarthby era is with those who would impose a theocracy on those they govern, with all its authoritarian and autocratic hallmarks.

Simply stated the principal is that a government is formed only by the common consent of the governed -- men (and women) of all faiths and dispositions who come together for the common purpose of self government. Through this system of government, they learn to evaluate and use the good from all -- and disregard those things that impede freedom - particularly of thought and exploration. If they choose to impede their own freedom that is their business as long as they do not enforce their beliefs on anyone else beyond the commonly agreed upon law of the land.

The Consitution of the USA recognizes this principle not only in the bill of rights, but in its main body by eliminating religious tests to hold office. That would suggest freedom from religion (not morals or principles) as well as the free practice thereof outside the domain of the common government.

To cut to the chase, then, THE BATTLE IS BETWEEN Securalists and Authoritarian Religionists, Theocrats for the shorter word.

MOST religious people do not fall into the authoritarian religious mold or even think they want a "theocracy" -- UNLESS they are shoved there by confrontation and lack of consideration of their ideas by Secularists and are fed lies and semanticaly loaded half truths by thosae who would be "God's spokesmen on earth."

Consideration, however is not necessarily demonstrated by adoption and enforcement or even inclusion by government of any religious dogma or finding of "fact" based upon opinion and interpretation of Eclesiastical matters rather than clear documented evidence and rationality.

This does mean, however, consideration and courtesy must be extended to the hearing and deliberation upon opinions of those we oppose in our responses. Then -- we must in courtesy --present the facts, statistics and body of evidence in a non compromising way, reminding them that the founding father of the US (and later French Leaders) discovered that Religious Autocracy and Government rarely mix without the blood of the innocent being shed along with the blood of those who actually believe in the good of man's intellect and internal moral code.

Therefore the reason for eliminating compromise on our part is simple.

As skeptics we know that "truth" is tentative and hypothesis often is tested greatly before it becomes theory. Theory may be modified by new fact or discovery-- and sometimes through intellectual "compromise."

IN THE PAST, in human consideration for others beliefs, we secularists and skeptics, and more so MODERATE Christians. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others have compromised to make people comfortable in a society that is very complex.

This compromise might projected be by merely remaining silent -- or by quetly thinking of or discussing ways we can reach a gratifying and peaceful middle ground. This might be manifested by funding things religious with tax dollars -- and calling it secular purpose. It might be in putting up Christmas displays in small town courthouse squares -- without a Channukah or Ramadan or a secular counterbalance.

It is my firm opinion that these "lets not make waves" compromises cannot continue. This is because Authoritarian Fundamentalists (a small core group with many followers based on VARIOUS AND SUNDRY acceptance of specific emotional doctrines and dogma) DO NOT COMPROMISE - as we know the term.

To many of these doctrinaire people -- our compromise or silence is a small step toward attaining their goal -- to be a viewed as their victory until WE are forced to compromise toward their view again and again in order for all remain "comfortable."

Not to compromise with them does open the risk to be branded as infidel, heathen secular humanist, doomed to hell, and immoral and godless for not agreeing with the proposed "godly" authority. It has resulted in loss of work -- loss of elections and being considered "part of the near criminal (ungodly) element." Discounting our middle ground ideas as Satan's playgrounds allows Theocratic leaders to continually demand we compromise more.

An old Eskimo saying -- "How do you eat a whole whale? ----- One bite at a time."

As secularists and skeptics we have been nibbled down to the point of irritation and anger.
We have even discounted OUR loyal opposition.

But -- even Christ preached patience and long suffering. We seem to be short of it and jump right to confrontation.

Confrontation and discounting EVERY person who practices religion is counter productive. Bombast from our side falls on deaf ears -- no matter how "right" we may be.

I believe firm explanation of our facts and beliefs, and resistance to the imposition of theocratic authority as a guiding principal is a requirement. Bad manners and bombast are not.

Let the Theocrats rail. When they make the wide ranging very ignorant statements (as Fallwell and Robertson did after 9/11) -- they make the mainstream Christian very uncomfortable -- and open an opportunity to communication of sound ideas not being biblicaly shoved down their throats as a relief from the panic of "not knowing."

And, consider this too. Where would we be if Michael Schermer had felt he was not welcome by scientists, skeptics and others who saw beyond his early ideas, to openly explore his belief system. This might have been manifested by being called an idiot or worse by "our side."

Today, if he had been insulted and defensive, we might be missing his latest book "The Science of Good and Evil." It proposes some tools and methois we might use in talking with people with rigid beliefs, who still have an ember of seeking information about science and morals outside the authoritarian fundamentalist mode and ITS semantic loading.

Gregg Chmara
Tucson, AZ USA

PS -- I cannot hold office in three states -- guess why????

[Robin]

Thanks Gregg, long post but I agree, it was very well put.

It boils down to do we want to make a difference or do we want to feel good about ourselves? If we want to make a difference we must be in dialogue.

Bullying language only forces people to fundamentalism in either camp (and yes I am guilty too and intend to reform).

[chmara]

Robin - I think Blaker makes a solid point. In our freedom -- we do not think of "regimenting" or even organizing response that includes courtesy to those who we feel miss what is painfully obvious ... Theocracy has never worked -- never will -- and is oiled by the blood of many.

An approach to opening minds -- to consideration of many things -- balance and test -- is ideologically what our message has to be.

When we work on that scale the question of opinion of operant fact (as opposed to truth) can be reasonably discussed by people of varying OPINION which is a major fear of the true believer and his/her followers.

GC