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

[mapuc]

Yesterday I saw an episode of Ancient Impossible.
This episode made me remember an another episode of Ancient Aliens.

Lets start with this Ancient aliens.

In this episode they were investigating the building of this ancient building and as usual they come to the conclusion…Yes you guessed it-Aliens.

Back to yesterdays episode of this Program Ancient Impossible.

As the speaker said.
To find out how they manage to move this massive huge stone, we need to ask an engineer from that time period and we have found one. Here at Oxford library some of the oldest scripture from that period can be found.

They had put huge wooden wheel on each side of this massive stone.

So no aliens here. Just genuin smart engineering from that time period.

This show that as an historian or as an scientist you should not be narrowminded.

Markus

[fireftr18]

Reminds me of an observation I made a few years ago. In Bible study class, after going over the creation story in depth, I started thinking back to my science classes in school, and the recent science based TV shows. When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.

How so?

[em2nought]

I think historians might be an endangered species. Unless they don't mind completely rewriting history if "anyone" finds it offensive.

[FullMetalADCAP]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

How so?

[Sailor Steve]

My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

[FullMetalADCAP]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

Sweet baby Jesus give me the strength!

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Sometimes I wonder if hell isn't moderating a forum...

What in the hell is that suppose to mean Just kiding

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

Am I too late to weigh in ... ?

How could Stephen Hawking have anything to say about who God is if he doesn't even believe in God or I should say while he was alive ... ?

I bet he has a lot to say by now, but we can not hear him on the other side

[fireftr18]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

Reminds me of an observation I made a few years ago. In Bible study class, after going over the creation story in depth, I started thinking back to my science classes in school, and the recent science based TV shows. When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.

My little comment created a fire storm. I certainly didn't intend for that to happen and apologize.
Sailor Steve asked the question, "How so?"
The Bible side tells the story of creation from a faith based, largely moral lesson view point. The details of the process used isn't important. The importance is that God caused the events.
The science side tells the same story detailing the process of how the universe, and eventually Earth and mankind evolved. Who caused the process and the reason why isn't important.
It's kind of like saying God made plants green because he knew that would be the most pleasing color for plants, and science says plants are green because the chemicals that make up chlorophyll cause it to have a green color, and enough chlorophyll are in plants to cause them to be green.
I hope my brief explanation helps you understand my position.
Thanks for asking the question.

[Skybird]

I still think that comparison makes no sense.

[fireftr18]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I still think that comparison makes no sense.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

I studied Genesis in depth for years, and I see no parallel at all. I might be missing something, but I have no clue what it is.

[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.