.......

Well remembered that it was Cain's descendants that represented the unrighteous line (Seth represented the righteous). However, in both the righteous and unrighteous lines were find the opposite. That's why Jesus own genealogy is so interesting; it contains murderers, adulterers and a prostitute.

So , he could come back in Pattaya then ?

I went to Sunday school. Then a leader of our church group took us to visit all the houses of worship in town -- synagogue, mormon temple, catholic church, Jehovah's witnesses hall...that's when I gave up on one faith. Look! You can pray anywhere and they all have the same god and Abraham, morals etc. Just the words are different. So, I reckon, if so many faiths have the same beginnings, there must be some truth in it all. It just got lost in the storytelling.

I believe in Gorgonism (Anomalous Space Time Piping)

The early "Christians" were more of a radical Jewish sect until the Rome branch hijacked the whole thing. They kept a lot of the Judaic stuff because it was easier than re-inventing the wheel. T'other fellow just went to the local religious buffet when making up his story. 500g Judaism , 200gm Christianity , add a few spices of Araby and stir well.

Your point of view would be more credible if you reconciled the "people of the book" with , say , Hinduism or another eastern faith.

Gotta go now because that black cloud over there looks a lot like a fatwah and I can hear a big cat growling in the underbrush.

So, ermm.. just noticed the thread title and was wondering what the conclusion was to the topic title:

What is Science?

So, ermm.. just noticed the thread title and was wondering what the conclusion was to the topic title:

What is Science?

Same as history mate - bunk.

True FS. Lovely and witty distillation. Now this will have me awake longer thinking about comparisons.

True FS. Lovely and witty distillation. Now this will have me awake longer thinking about comparisons.

I remember a bridge game in a previous life that left me off bridge for a while. Me and my "I just about remember the rules but DO NOT expect me to understand what your last bid meant" level of play got put in face of a colleague who played in tournaments at the national level. I says "1 heart" , he smiles and he says "6 hearts" and I think "<deleted> do I do now?". Somewhat nervous about opening my mouth for the rest of the game.

All this was alleviated somewhat by our host discussing religion. An Indian gentleman of the Hindu persuasion , his comparison of Christianity (one dour and somewhat boring God) with the possibilities offered by his faith (How do I feel today? Who will I go for today. After all I've got a God for every day of the week.) was most entertaining.

So back to the dinosaurs, I can't see the genetic engineering argument holding water! What for and why? It also flies in the face of the creationist’s argument that only God gives life. No, they existed and we don't know how they were wiped out. Probably in the flood - only God knows.

But it is believed by some Creationists as an explanation for dinosaurs. What was preached to me was not that they created life, but performed experiments with other animals to make the dinosaurs. Isn't this what happens today on a smaller scale? Cloning and creating different breeds is going on quite a lot. Pink dogs in Japan, etc. I saw a zebra-horse creature on tv yesterday that had the weirdest patterns on an equus creature that I've ever seen.

The early "Christians" were more of a radical Jewish sect until the Rome branch hijacked the whole thing. They kept a lot of the Judaic stuff because it was easier than re-inventing the wheel. T'other fellow just went to the local religious buffet when making up his story. 500g Judaism , 200gm Christianity , add a few spices of Araby and stir well.

Your point of view would be more credible if you reconciled the "people of the book" with , say , Hinduism or another eastern faith.

Christians kept Judaic aspects because they shared some of the same scriptures.

As for your reconciling, there are many stories in religions all over the world (Hinduism, Buddhism, Alaskan Inuits animistic religion, etc.) that have stories quite similar to the Biblical flood of Noah, for just one example.

The early "Christians" were more of a radical Jewish sect until the Rome branch hijacked the whole thing. They kept a lot of the Judaic stuff because it was easier than re-inventing the wheel. T'other fellow just went to the local religious buffet when making up his story. 500g Judaism , 200gm Christianity , add a few spices of Araby and stir well.

It was a 'Jewish sect', and was called such in it's early years. It had two separate growing lines when it started being spread to the Gentiles. One wanted to make it in Judaism and one wanted to make it into whatever they were before becoming Christians. That's human nature. The corruption of the 'Church' was inevitable as it spread wider. The corruption of dictrine by the third century was beyond belief! Reason for it was they lost the simplicity of the bible message and starting introducing what they were before!

So back to the dinosaurs, I can't see the genetic engineering argument holding water! What for and why? It also flies in the face of the creationist’s argument that only God gives life. No, they existed and we don't know how they were wiped out. Probably in the flood - only God knows.

But it is believed by some Creationists as an explanation for dinosaurs. What was preached to me was not that they created life, but performed experiments with other animals to make the dinosaurs. Isn't this what happens today on a smaller scale? Cloning and creating different breeds is going on quite a lot. Pink dogs in Japan, etc. I saw a zebra-horse creature on tv yesterday that had the weirdest patterns on an equus creature that I've ever seen.

That may be the case, but I certainly don't believe it! It just holds no water in my cistern!

Jimjim,

I have no argument at all with those who want to believe whatever they want to based on faith, as long as they don't push their beliefs in schools. Schools are places where science is taught in science class. If "creationism" walks the walk and talks the talk (of science)- i.e., it presents a disprovable and testable hypothesis which gains credence through a body of testable, repeatable experiments and data widely agreed upon by experts to explain observable natural phenomenon to a significantly better degree than other available models- then I'll be happy to call it science, and so would all the *scientists*.

Until that time (most likely never, though best of luck and all), those who push creationism as a part of science class are either disingenuous or extremely misinformed about what science is, and they deserve much more than condescension for their attacks on genuine education. It's hard enough to teach what science really means to young people without having zealots, sincere or misguided or otherwise, pretend that the pseudoscientific claptrap so far on offer (Noah had dinosaurs in his ark, sez the new "creationist" museum in Kentucky!!!) seriously "competes" with genuine science as practiced by the scientific community, or even uses the same etymology.

"Steven"

I have no argument at all with those who want to believe whatever they want to based on faith, as long as they don't push their beliefs in schools. Schools are places where science is taught in science class. If "creationism" walks the walk and talks the talk (of science)- i.e., it presents a disprovable and testable hypothesis which gains credence through a body of testable, repeatable experiments and data widely agreed upon by experts to explain observable natural phenomenon to a significantly better degree than other available models- then I'll be happy to call it science, and so would all the *scientists*.

Well said.

My Major was Geology, the subject has changed over time as new evidence has come to light. In the days when I was studying, we knew nothing of the existence of Toba for example, now we do, and there is fairly conclusive evidence that it was responsible for nearly wiping out the entire human race around 75,000 years ago. Yes, they are theories, as unless you happened to be there with a video camera, nothing is 100% certain.

But I would rather be 95% certain of an event taking place based on tangible evidence, than have blind faith in an event that apparently happened just because someone said it did.

If someone out there tries to say that carbon dating is false, I'll stick my head in a bucket and try to forget that two plus two equals four.

Thanks for the link, Thads.

But doesn't 2 + 2 = 4.78?

And just for the record, I don't know a single credible scientist that would state that "evolution is scientific fact". Good scientists postulate theories and seek for evidence to prove or disprove them. It's an excellent discipline and I admire their minds and intellectual discipline. They don't pretend things have been proven that have not.

Evolution isn't a fact since it would require hard proof and not just some proof and a lot of probable proofs - so it's just a theory.

Creationism however has neither of these. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. And it looks to remain that.

And just for the record, I don't know a single credible scientist that would state that "evolution is scientific fact". Good scientists postulate theories and seek for evidence to prove or disprove them. It's an excellent discipline and I admire their minds and intellectual discipline. They don't pretend things have been proven that have not.

Evolution isn't a fact since it would require hard proof and not just some proof and a lot of probable proofs - so it's just a theory.

Creationism however has neither of these. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. And it looks to remain that.

Well said TAWP. This thread has had many intelligent and respectful replies. At the end of the day we believe what we believe for whatever reason.

Taking Steven's point on board about pushing things down people's necks. The same is true of both sides of the argument, don't call theories fact, or hypothesis fact. Then we'd all be happy. Now, universal happiness, is that a theory, hypothesis, or fact?

As i said before, I AM GOD.

Now, if only we can get you non-believers to believe in me, we can have world peace and universal happiness.

Sorry Moss I thought I was Moderating again.

And a fine job you do to.

Moss

And just for the record, I don't know a single credible scientist that would state that "evolution is scientific fact". Good scientists postulate theories and seek for evidence to prove or disprove them. It's an excellent discipline and I admire their minds and intellectual discipline. They don't pretend things have been proven that have not.

Evolution isn't a fact since it would require hard proof and not just some proof and a lot of probable proofs - so it's just a theory.

Creationism however has neither of these. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. And it looks to remain that.

Well said TAWP. This thread has had many intelligent and respectful replies. At the end of the day we believe what we believe for whatever reason.

Taking Steven's point on board about pushing things down people's necks. The same is true of both sides of the argument, don't call theories fact, or hypothesis fact. Then we'd all be happy. Now, universal happiness, is that a theory, hypothesis, or fact?

Universal Happiness is still a distant marker, and the difficulties of this future theory/fact/hypothesis is man's inhumanity to man in the pursuit of power, land and position, often in the guise of Religion that gets a bad press because of the megalomania of individuals and groups and whole nations, having to give themselves a reason for this ambition.

Moss

Taking Steven's point on board about pushing things down people's necks. The same is true of both sides of the argument, don't call theories fact, or hypothesis fact. Then we'd all be happy. Now, universal happiness, is that a theory, hypothesis, or fact?

Universal Happiness is still a distant marker, and the difficulties of this future theory/fact/hypothesis is man's inhumanity to man in the pursuit of power, land and position, often in the guise of Religion that gets a bad press because of the megalomania of individuals and groups and whole nations, having to give themselves a reason for this ambition.

Moss

Man's mass beliefs - the belief in hatred, the belief in lack, the belief in the self separated from the whole, the belief in individual powerlessness, etc., etc. - are passed down from generation to generation. Thus, history repeats; as in endless wars, greed, violations of all natures towards his fellows, and uncontrollable fear regarding his well-being.

Tell someone they're capable of unlimited love, that there's more than enough for everyone, that all humanity is connected, that the individual has full control of their lives. And watch the amazing reactions of outright venomous disbelief.

Man's beliefs control man because man doesn't understand the function of beliefs, nor his responsibility regarding his choice of beliefs. Man doesn't even understand who he is nor his purpose here. The individual is waiting for the world to change, hoping against all odds that he doesn't have to change himself. Agreed then, it will take some time.