You should not be so narrowminded, if you are an historian or an scientist

[August]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

I apologize. I guess my little explanation really doesn't explain my point. I don't know how to explain better. The creation story and scientific explanation parallel each other, not perfect, but mostly so. I guess studying Genesis in depth with the proper guidance will help understand.

Well they are both attempts to explain things that we don't understand.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

I apologize. I guess my little explanation really doesn't explain my point. I don't know how to explain better. The creation story and scientific explanation parallel each other, not perfect, but mostly so. I guess studying Genesis in depth with the proper guidance will help understand.

I do not claim to have studied Genesis "for years", but I certainly know it, and quite some more parts of the Bible. Thats general education, I would say. And I see no such "parallels".

I can appreciate the prose or beauty in a piece of fiction. Like I also appreciate the Hindi metaphor of god Brahma breathing in and out the universe. Or the singing of the Ainur bringing the world into being in the Silmarillion. The latter is the most poetic creation myth I ever have read. But lets leave prose and scietific methodology two different things, even if the Ainur'S music might be tempting for some to compare it to hysics fact that all world is wave and is oscillation and thus: "music".

Texts like the Bible only make sense, a bit at least, if understanding that they a.) reflect the knowledge horizon of the authors of the time they lived in, and b.) that the Bible speaks in images, in metaphors. Its no realstic, no scientific, no empirical report. Its an artisistic approach on something. Taking it literally, which would be needed to compare it to a scientific theory, makes no sense, and leads only to intellectual self-limitation.

Not even mentioning the many, many, many things and details where science has proven religious texts being wrong. Simply wrong.

The world as it is, always is perfect, in every single moment of its ecistence.Becasue it represents and all life's evoltuion ever ymoments represents the status of how far things could have formed up in the time they had available to do so until here, and becasue this universe is formed by existential cionditions and variables that must be met so that it does not all fly apart. There might be othe runiverse with other such exostential factors and other variables, but this is th eone we live in, and that things in it meet this universe's demands is no miracle at all, but a necessity, else these things and the universe itself would not exist. Within these limits, its a big experimentation playground for evolution. What works, is. What works not, gets sorted out or at least massively altered.

I always compare it a bit to the theory model of the free market and its invisible hands. Free barter and trade brings together an infinite numbers of individual preferrences, wishes, capabilties and intentions. it is impossible to regulate it, to overwatch it, to plan it. Still, leave it to itself, and every buyers finds an offerer, every prudducer finds a customer, although there never will be or cna be a blueprint for trying to sort and plan and forsee all that. It just works if left to itself.

Evolution is comparable. You cannot forsee how it goes in the future, and you cannot plot a map of how what interacts with what else and this map now in all details for all species and forms existing and all their exact interaction. It cannot be planned. But still: it works if left to itself.

The only magic here is that of dynamic self-sustaining systems, like a rotating top stabilising itself if only you do not try to help it, like the numerical relation between numbers of predators and prey fluctuate within a stabil range, like you ride and keep the balance on a bycicle without thinking about it, when you do, you will fail.

Its all a dream dancing with itself. Nothing is forever, nothing stays the same, all changes constantly. Panta rhei.

[fireftr18]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Texts like the Bible only make sense, a bit at least, if understanding that they a.) reflect the knowledge horizon of the authors of the time they lived in, and b.) that the Bible speaks in images, in metaphors. Its no realstic, no scientific, no empirical report. Its an artisistic approach on something. Taking it literally, which would be needed to compare it to a scientific theory, makes no sense, and leads only to intellectual self-limitation.

Thank you Skybird, your statement helped me understand where I made my mistake with my explanation. There are people who believe the story in the Bible is strictly the way it was. Literally, God created the world in 6 days. There are people who believe strictly science, that the events simply happened with no input. Some of these people want to compare both with each other. You're right, they can't be compared because they are two completely, incompatible explanations if taken literally. I feel that the two accounts compliment each other in that God caused and directed the events. The key is to not take Genesis literally, don't take the science explanation as total random events, and by all means keep an open mind about both.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

I feel that the two accounts compliment each other in that God caused and directed the events.

That's where the trip ends for me. God caused and directed the events? Which God? The problem with any ancient accounts is that there is no way to test them. There may be a God, and any of the ancient texts may be correct, but there is no way to prove or disprove any of them. The thing people misunderstand about science is that while it is all theory, the theory is always the best combination of observations of the facts. That, and scientists are almost always willing to admit when they are wrong. They are wrong when experimentation shows they are wrong, and the answer is to do more experimenting to find out what was wrong and to discover what is right. With religion there is no room allowed for being wrong, and questioning, testing and experimenting is strictly not allowed. And, as stated earlier, even if it was allowed there are no tests you can do to prove or disprove God. If He is there, as far as science is concerned he might as well not be.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

There are people who believe the story in the Bible is strictly the way it was. Literally, God created the world in 6 days. There are people who believe strictly science, that the events simply happened with no input. Some of these people want to compare both with each other. You're right, they can't be compared because they are two completely, incompatible explanations if taken literally. I feel that the two accounts compliment each other in that God caused and directed the events. The key is to not take Genesis literally, don't take the science explanation as total random events, and by all means keep an open mind about both.

Don't forget St Peter stated that "one thousand years is like one day with the Lord" So it could of taken a bit longer to create the world according to what man thinks, but the command to take care of His creation cannot be mistaken ... plus God has put His Spirit into man and man is His proudest creation.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The thing people misunderstand about science is that while it is all theory, the theory is always the best combination of observations of the facts... If He is there, as far as science is concerned he might as well not be.

Any relationship to Auguste Comte?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Any relationship to Auguste Comte?

I'm not even sure I'm related to myself.

Joking aside, I did a little reading on Compte's Religion of Humanity, and I'm not a fan so far. That said, I'm far from a real understanding of it, so my opinion doesn't really count.

[Ashikaga]

A scientist!

Be more spelling agressive!

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The thing people misunderstand about science is that while it is all theory, the theory is always the best combination of observations of the facts. That, and scientists are almost always willing to admit when they are wrong. They are wrong when experimentation shows they are wrong, and the answer is to do more experimenting to find out what was wrong and to discover what is right.

That's the positivist point of view of Auguste Compte. If a problem dealing with the external world does not admit of being referred immediately to some kind of sensory experience and does not allow of being placed under observation, then it has no meaning and must be ruled out. Therefore within the scope of the positivist system of always requiring observation there is no place for metaphysics.

[Platapus]

To quote from one my favourite movies

"I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything."

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Platapus

To quote from one my favourite movies

"I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything."

But in reality there have been numerous Nobel laurates who did believe in something. ��

[Buddahaid]

Science hypothesizes then searches for proofs to create theories. Religion hypothesizes and then says believe.

Originally Posted by Platapus

With a sufficient amount of
1. Slaves
2. Motivation
3. Time
Wondrous things can be constructed.

Some sources [citation needed] suggests that findings in graves near Egyptian pyramid building sites imply the builders might not have been slaves but rather paid workers with shifts and sort-of-a-holidays.
Don't know if your post was directed to this particular subject, but decided to give you another perspective anyway.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Mussalo

Some sources [citation needed] suggests that findings in graves near Egyptian pyramid building sites imply the builders might not have been slaves but rather paid workers with shifts and sort-of-a-holidays.
Don't know if your post was directed to this particular subject, but decided to give you another perspective anyway.

I have read that also. It could have been a combination of the two.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Any relationship to Auguste Comte?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm not even sure I'm related to myself.

Joking aside, I did a little reading on Compte's Religion of Humanity, and I'm not a fan so far. That said, I'm far from a real understanding of it, so my opinion doesn't really count.

NON COMTES MENTIS THEN