Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
The following has been pulled from an exchange concerning jewish people within the bible and the punishment God dealt to them through the books. The issue is that adding up the punishments jews received throughout the bible...resulting in the loss of their country, language, and culture...when all was accounted for it leads up to the point in time when their country, culture, and society were founded once more. In all the history of the world...this has not once happened to any other people group. Shockingly, it ends up being the exact date and time when the countries of the world signed them back into existance in 1948. (I think that's right)

• > My friend says your math is way off..I'm awful at math so I'm not gonna even
  > attempt. What is your starting point and how did you figure that it came to
  > may 1948?
  
  The math is sound. It was first published in a book called "Armageddon -
  Appointment with Destiny" in 1988 and has never been refuted in all the
  years since despite high publicity and awareness among Bible scholars who
  have examined the math very carefully.
  
  Beginning point is 536BC, when the Jews were released from captivity.
  
  God had decreed through Ezekiel that Israel would suffer 430 years of
  punishment. Removing the 70 years of captivity would bring the remaining 360
  years to the year 176BC. At that time the punishment clearly did not end and
  the Jews were not yet living in a land that was entirely theirs. So we have
  to take a closer look because *either* God was wrong or there is another
  answer to the puzzle.
  
  There were many places in Scripture, including Isaiah's prophecies more than
  100 years prior to the captivity itself, that prophetic proclamations called
  for the Jews to celebrate their release from Babylonian captivity and to go
  back to Jerusalem at that time with joyful worship. It was clearly God's
  plan that they all return to the land that had been promised and won with
  such great faith and effort.
  
  Unfortunately, only a small handful returned. Scholars aren't sure exactly
  how many Jews were living in the Babylonian/Persian empire at the time, but
  estimates range from 500,000 to 700,000 and only 44,000 returned. This is
  well below 10 percent! It is clear that the vast majority were enjoying the
  wealth and comfortable life they had made in this tolerant yet pagan empire.
  There was little anti-Semitism. Jews held positions of honor and had built
  vast business empires. Although many of the Jews were devout and held to
  their beliefs faithfully, they had no temple and could not fulfill all the
  requirements of the Law, so clearly their lack of desire to return would be
  seen by God as a sinful attitude. This is especially true given His direct
  commands to return home when allowed to do so.
  
  In Leviticus 26:18, 21, 23-24, 27-28 God declares that after Israel suffers
  the 70 years of punishment for not keeping the Sabbath of the land, if they
  continue to disobey "then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."
  This meant that the Jews would remain without a nation they could call their
  own for another 2,520 biblical years from 536BC (360 x 7 = 2,520). Note that
  the Bible only deals in 360-day years.
  
  Babylonian captivity ended in spring of 536BC or 536.4BC
  
  Duration of Israel's captivity 3483.8 calendar years (2520 biblical years
  work out to 3483.8 modern years of 365.25 days)
  
  This arrives at a date of 1947.4 AD using simple math, but there is no year
  "0" so we have to add one year to adjust for this (the calendar jumps from
  1BC to 1AD -- there was only one year between the Passover celebrations of
  14Nisan 1BC and 14Nisan 1AD). Adding that year takes us to May 15, 1948.
  
  In order to calculate it with all the necessary details, you have to convert
  biblical years to days and measure the days, including the adding of leap
  years. This was all documented in the "Armageddon" book.
  
  There is some uncertainty about the exact starting date, but if you assume
  it begins when Cyrus' decree was issued which is a reasonable assumption
  then it works out.
  
  Thanks for writing to have this clarified. Hope my explanation helped.
  
  --
  
  = George Pytlik =
  george@pytlik.com
  
  http://www.pytlik.com/
  
  "People read what interests them; and
  sometimes it's an ad." --Howard Gossage

wow...that's confusing....

does this help petrek?

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: petrek

Ok, if it's that easy, give us a couple.

There is no way...NO WAY...that creationism can be backed by scientific data. NO WAY.

Creationism, the belief that Christ created the Universe out of nothing, can't be proven, because no human is able to create something out of nothing.
The belief that Christ created the Universe is based on the accuracy of Scripture, especially as it relates to the Jews. In other words, a Christians belief in Creationism isn't based on what the Bible says on Creationism, but rather on the Bibles accuracy regarding the Jews. If the Bible was inaccurate regarding the Jews, than a Christian would have no reason to believe that what is said in regards to how the Universe got here is accurate. It is because of Scriptures accuracy in regards to the Jews, that one can trust what the Scriptures say in regards to how the Universe got here.

The old earth theory is based on uniformitarianism, whereas the young earth theory is based on the knowledge that all things do not continue as they always were.
So while it is impossible for a human to prove that something can be created out of nothing (because man is incapable of such miracles), and subsequently, it is impossible to scientifically test for such miracles. There is plenty of evidence to prove that things do not always progress at the same pace.

Well, you can hold on to that belief despite the fact that it's been proven by many people (for well over two decades now) that Moses did NOT write the first five books.

Who are these people? Where did they study? Who did they study under? On what basis did they formulate their opinion?

I've posted links in this thread before. Go search around Amazon or Barnes and Noble for about any book on biblical study from scholars expert in translating ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc. and from using sources other than the early version of the Bible (Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi texts, etc.). You'll find that Creationism is a hoax and that your belief that Moses actually wrote the 1st five books of the OT is based upon misinformation and improper translations.

BTW, I see you failed to provide even *one* link showing scientific data backing creationism. You said it was so simple via Google. Give us one.

 

[I800C0LECT]

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

I apologize...but you are taking the idea of symbolism in this reference out of context. It is based on comparative understanding of specific timeframes. This is not a simile or a play on words.

i.e. the issue of kilometers vs. mile

Obviously if an American goes to Europe...he has no clue how far a kilometer might be. However, if he researches it is still understood to be said distance in terms of a mile. That understanding of distance is universal reguardless of what standard you might use. The same goes for agriculture, which in many cultures is the basis for the measurement of time.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
The following has been pulled from an exchange concerning jewish people within the bible and the punishment God dealt to them through the books. The issue is that adding up the punishments jews received throughout the bible...resulting in the loss of their country, language, and culture...when all was accounted for it leads up to the point in time when their country, culture, and society were founded once more. In all the history of the world...this has not once happened to any other people group. Shockingly, it ends up being the exact date and time when the countries of the world signed them back into existance in 1948. (I think that's right)

• > My friend says your math is way off..I'm awful at math so I'm not gonna even
  > attempt. What is your starting point and how did you figure that it came to
  > may 1948?
  
  The math is sound. It was first published in a book called "Armageddon -
  Appointment with Destiny" in 1988 and has never been refuted in all the
  years since despite high publicity and awareness among Bible scholars who
  have examined the math very carefully.
  
  Beginning point is 536BC, when the Jews were released from captivity.
  
  God had decreed through Ezekiel that Israel would suffer 430 years of
  punishment. Removing the 70 years of captivity would bring the remaining 360
  years to the year 176BC. At that time the punishment clearly did not end and
  the Jews were not yet living in a land that was entirely theirs. So we have
  to take a closer look because *either* God was wrong or there is another
  answer to the puzzle.
  
  There were many places in Scripture, including Isaiah's prophecies more than
  100 years prior to the captivity itself, that prophetic proclamations called
  for the Jews to celebrate their release from Babylonian captivity and to go
  back to Jerusalem at that time with joyful worship. It was clearly God's
  plan that they all return to the land that had been promised and won with
  such great faith and effort.
  
  Unfortunately, only a small handful returned. Scholars aren't sure exactly
  how many Jews were living in the Babylonian/Persian empire at the time, but
  estimates range from 500,000 to 700,000 and only 44,000 returned. This is
  well below 10 percent! It is clear that the vast majority were enjoying the
  wealth and comfortable life they had made in this tolerant yet pagan empire.
  There was little anti-Semitism. Jews held positions of honor and had built
  vast business empires. Although many of the Jews were devout and held to
  their beliefs faithfully, they had no temple and could not fulfill all the
  requirements of the Law, so clearly their lack of desire to return would be
  seen by God as a sinful attitude. This is especially true given His direct
  commands to return home when allowed to do so.
  
  In Leviticus 26:18, 21, 23-24, 27-28 God declares that after Israel suffers
  the 70 years of punishment for not keeping the Sabbath of the land, if they
  continue to disobey "then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."
  This meant that the Jews would remain without a nation they could call their
  own for another 2,520 biblical years from 536BC (360 x 7 = 2,520). Note that
  the Bible only deals in 360-day years.
  
  Babylonian captivity ended in spring of 536BC or 536.4BC
  
  Duration of Israel's captivity 3483.8 calendar years (2520 biblical years
  work out to 3483.8 modern years of 365.25 days)
  
  This arrives at a date of 1947.4 AD using simple math, but there is no year
  "0" so we have to add one year to adjust for this (the calendar jumps from
  1BC to 1AD -- there was only one year between the Passover celebrations of
  14Nisan 1BC and 14Nisan 1AD). Adding that year takes us to May 15, 1948.
  
  In order to calculate it with all the necessary details, you have to convert
  biblical years to days and measure the days, including the adding of leap
  years. This was all documented in the "Armageddon" book.
  
  There is some uncertainty about the exact starting date, but if you assume
  it begins when Cyrus' decree was issued which is a reasonable assumption
  then it works out.
  
  Thanks for writing to have this clarified. Hope my explanation helped.
  
  --
  
  = George Pytlik =
  george@pytlik.com
  
  http://www.pytlik.com/
  
  "People read what interests them; and
  sometimes it's an ad." --Howard Gossage

wow...that's confusing....

does this help petrek?

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

To many, the concept of a metaphor is too advanced, I think.

 

[daniel49]

Okay get a case. Throw in some diodes transistors couple of hd's a floppy, some wires a ps, some ram, a battery, a few fans, a cpu,a heatsink, some cards, well you get the idea throw it all in there in its raw form. now close the case. Now shake it around real good and open it up and see if its assembled itself? No not yet try again. No? well evolutions main friend is time and chance so you keep shaking and when it assembles into something intelligent post it here please.

Because when you do I will want to know where the original materials came from.
ps. I won't be holding my breath.:Q

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Okay get a case. Throw in some diodes transistors couple of hd's a floppy, some wires a ps, some ram, a battery, a few fans, a cpu,a heatsink, some cards, well you get the idea throw it all in there in its raw form. now close the case. Now shake it around real good and open it up and see if its assembled itself? No not yet try again. No? well evolutions main friend is time and chance so you keep shaking and when it assembles into something intelligent post it here please.

Because when you do I will want to know where the original materials came from.
ps. I won't be holding my breath.:Q

Hey, I'm not holding my breath teaching donkeys to think.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Okay get a case. Throw in some diodes transistors couple of hd's a floppy, some wires a ps, some ram, a battery, a few fans, a cpu,a heatsink, some cards, well you get the idea throw it all in there in its raw form. now close the case. Now shake it around real good and open it up and see if its assembled itself? No not yet try again. No? well evolutions main friend is time and chance so you keep shaking and when it assembles into something intelligent post it here please.

Because when you do I will want to know where the original materials came from.
ps. I won't be holding my breath.:Q

But you are saying that over 20 billion years, the contraption will never work? It is almost impossible to imagine how long that is.

The materials, silicon, selenium etc etc came from 1st generation and 2nd generation stars going supernovae and synthesizing these elements. This is all documented scientific fact.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
hrmmmm.

Everybody throwing around "facts"....I looked it up and I fail to see the interpretation I had been taught.

However, my science teacher once taught me that a fact is any direct statement with the ability to be proven true or false.

i.e. At one point in time it was a fact that the world was flat.

Proof in science is a concept that is often misunderstood.

The world being flat may have been considered a fact (without the benefit of scientific evidence) at one point-- socio-politically. But not by science as we understand today

Science seeks to prove nothing--I've written many times about this before. Its an important distinction.

Science seeks to disprove hypothesis statements through the use of probability statistics. Formaly you can find out more about this under "Falsification"

So, you are correct that science basically says outright: "We don't know--and further we can never know for sure" We can only make a statistical statement about the probability that a hypothesis is due to some error rate--with some percent confidence.


Facts, on the other hand, are tricky: Some would say that philosophically we need not any statistical confidence that the Universe is a fact; or that humans are factual; or that I just had an orange cranberry scone for breakfast.

So, those folks would say: those things are factual. And how they arrived here, or how they became, or who created them is another question all together.

Science tries to answer these questions epistemologically, not metaphisically.

It is mechanisms of evolution that are hypothesized--and that scientists seek to disprove. NOT PROVE.

A common and ironic mistake amongst non-scientists. Scientists are in-fact actually trying to find alternative mechanistic hypothesis of and for organic biota--other than synthetic evolution.

Problem is that synthetic evolution is so well supported by scientific evidence (there has never been a single example of an organism that is discordant with the theory of evolution), that no one has been able to put a dent in the hypothesis, yet.

 

[WiseOldDude]

I find it utterly amazing that some imiginary being waved his wand/finger and poof there is everything we know as the universe including ourself. How far up one's backside must one have their head to swallow that theory?

I also find it utterly amazing that we would consider that we are the only life form in the universe. I know we are a very arrogant bunch, but really are some that over the top?

 

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: daniel49
Okay get a case. Throw in some diodes transistors couple of hd's a floppy, some wires a ps, some ram, a battery, a few fans, a cpu,a heatsink, some cards, well you get the idea throw it all in there in its raw form. now close the case. Now shake it around real good and open it up and see if its assembled itself? No not yet try again. No? well evolutions main friend is time and chance so you keep shaking and when it assembles into something intelligent post it here please.

Because when you do I will want to know where the original materials came from.
ps. I won't be holding my breath.:Q

But you are saying that over 20 billion years, the contraption will never work? It is almost impossible to imagine how long that is.

The materials, silicon, selenium etc etc came from 1st generation and 2nd generation stars going supernovae and synthesizing these elements. This is all documented scientific fact.

just because it is a fact does not mean it is "true". Our perception of truth is subjective. We are not omnipotent beings....therefore we must calculate variables in the hypotheses and theories that we test. Obviously we will never have the capacity to take into account every variable in all situations.

I was always taught that a fact is any direct statement that may be proven true or false.

i.e. The world is flat.

 

[I800C0LECT]

fjord...well said

I probably did not clarify myself too well but essentially you went into the detail I was referring to. I'm just not a bright kid

Indirectly I am pointing out that many people equate a fact as truth. However, degenerative semantics play a huge role in exactly how one person defines a fact.

My premice is that a fact defined is a direct statement attempting to define truth. But like I said, since we're all flaming idiots Truth is subjective to the individual...so that a fact according to one person may not be so due to anothers' perception or the ability to disporve that fact over a period of time due to specific advances in theories etc..

that's why I thought that "The world is flat" would be a good example.

I personally don't have the capacity to argue for or against many scientific studies. I simply have my own subjective viewpoint. I believe most of the people in the discussion fail to see the difference in their approach.

Don't under-estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

 

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
I find it utterly amazing that some imiginary being waved his wand/finger and poof there is everything we know as the universe including ourself. How far up one's backside must one have their head to swallow that theory?

I also find it utterly amazing that we would consider that we are the only life form in the universe. I know we are a very arrogant bunch, but really are some that over the top?

to what extent does questioning the faith of others promote close mindedness? Does it not make you curious as to how and why somebody might so "blindly" believe? Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

I hope you don't take this post the wrong way. I like listening to everybody's POV.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
I find it utterly amazing that some imiginary being waved his wand/finger and poof there is everything we know as the universe including ourself. How far up one's backside must one have their head to swallow that theory?

I also find it utterly amazing that we would consider that we are the only life form in the universe. I know we are a very arrogant bunch, but really are some that over the top?

to what extent does questioning the faith of others promote close mindedness? Does it not make you curious as to how and why somebody might so "blindly" believe? Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

I hope you don't take this post the wrong way. I like listening to everybody's POV.

I always take statements about human nature as unexamined assumptions because it is my view that only a tiny fraction of humanity is real and living according to their real numan nature.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

I apologize...but you are taking the idea of symbolism in this reference out of context. It is based on comparative understanding of specific timeframes. This is not a simile or a play on words.

i.e. the issue of kilometers vs. mile

Obviously if an American goes to Europe...he has no clue how far a kilometer might be. However, if he researches it is still understood to be said distance in terms of a mile. That understanding of distance is universal reguardless of what standard you might use. The same goes for agriculture, which in many cultures is the basis for the measurement of time.

No, you're missing the point. It's like an American going to Europe only to find a map given to him has distances expressed as doohingles. Where a doohingle has no conversion value to any other system. Many numbers in the OT are simply fictional, they are purely symbolic (3 days, 40 days, etc.) Those are numbers which are symbolic in terms of times of trial or just meaning a long period of time.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

 

[StageLeft]

Those are basically circumstantial, which is not really a good ground to prove that something as severe as evolution is true. It probably is, but that's not a great proof.

 

[petrek]

I've posted links in this thread before. Go search around Amazon or Barnes and Noble for about any book on biblical study from scholars expert in translating ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc. and from using sources other than the early version of the Bible (Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi texts, etc.). You'll find that Creationism is a hoax and that your belief that Moses actually wrote the 1st five books of the OT is based upon misinformation and improper translations.

What I´ll find is that there are a bunch of people within the last few decades that have accepted and spread the misinformed (and recently popular) opinion that Moses didn´t write the first 5 books, and that creationism is a hoax.

BTW, I see you failed to provide even *one* link showing scientific data backing creationism. You said it was so simple via Google. Give us one.

As I said before it´s not about proving the world came into existence out of nothing, as that is impossible to prove. It is about proving that the world can be younger than the average scientist claims. Here is one example.

Dave

 

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

I apologize...but you are taking the idea of symbolism in this reference out of context. It is based on comparative understanding of specific timeframes. This is not a simile or a play on words.

i.e. the issue of kilometers vs. mile

Obviously if an American goes to Europe...he has no clue how far a kilometer might be. However, if he researches it is still understood to be said distance in terms of a mile. That understanding of distance is universal reguardless of what standard you might use. The same goes for agriculture, which in many cultures is the basis for the measurement of time.

No, you're missing the point. It's like an American going to Europe only to find a map given to him has distances expressed as doohingles. Where a doohingle has no conversion value to any other system. Many numbers in the OT are simply fictional, they are purely symbolic (3 days, 40 days, etc.) Those are numbers which are symbolic in terms of times of trial or just meaning a long period of time.

uh...I have no idea what you are referring to. If you look at what I posted the gentleman and his theory is laid out. Argue against the point the gentleman made...disprove his math maybe?

That guy is not talking about every other idea thrown around in the bible. What he referenced he laid out specifically in terms of his theory and the creation of Israel in 1948.

Address the post...not the rest of the bible. You can use the link in the original post to his web site.

 

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

I advocate the recognition of our subjective view on what definitive truth might be

POV from a limited capacity will always be subjective, no matter how intelligent, knowledgable, or learned one might be. We're all flaming idiots...some just have a more logical approach. Our faith, whether placed in science, theology, or whatever else you might conjure, will always be circumstancial.

 

[cjorod]

Proof of evolution - actual photos

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

It's confusing because it's all based upon *symbolism*. Why do people continue to take numbers and phrases completely literally from a work written based upon symbolism??

It's just mind-boggling.

I apologize...but you are taking the idea of symbolism in this reference out of context. It is based on comparative understanding of specific timeframes. This is not a simile or a play on words.

i.e. the issue of kilometers vs. mile

Obviously if an American goes to Europe...he has no clue how far a kilometer might be. However, if he researches it is still understood to be said distance in terms of a mile. That understanding of distance is universal reguardless of what standard you might use. The same goes for agriculture, which in many cultures is the basis for the measurement of time.

No, you're missing the point. It's like an American going to Europe only to find a map given to him has distances expressed as doohingles. Where a doohingle has no conversion value to any other system. Many numbers in the OT are simply fictional, they are purely symbolic (3 days, 40 days, etc.) Those are numbers which are symbolic in terms of times of trial or just meaning a long period of time.

uh...I have no idea what you are referring to. If you look at what I posted the gentleman and his theory is laid out. Argue against the point the gentleman made...disprove his math maybe?

That guy is not talking about every other idea thrown around in the bible. What he referenced he laid out specifically in terms of his theory and the creation of Israel in 1948.

Address the post...not the rest of the bible. You can use the link in the original post to his web site.

I did. That's what you keep missing!

Many of the numbers used to calculate the dates are FICTITIOUS numbers! They are SYMBOLIC numbers not meant to be taken literally.

The "math" used to come up with that May 1948 date was from purely picking and choosing numbers and assigning various formulae to them to arrive at the desired date.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

Well well isn't that a most fascinating and intriguing post.

When I discovered these facts I realized that everything that I had been taught and ever believed true was a total fabrication and lie, and that the notion that there is anything good was a complete and total lie, that the world is in utterly without meaning.

This threw me into such a black pit of despair that I knew that henceforth it would be impossible ever to be happy. One night, deep in contemplation and suffering over the question as to why I hurt so bad for lack of meaning, the wind hit the house with a blast. The thinker died and the chimpanzee came into being. The universe is nothing but a stupendously glorious banana. Have a banana please.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

I advocate the recognition of our subjective view on what definitive truth might be

POV from a limited capacity will always be subjective, no matter how intelligent, knowledgable, or learned one might be. We're all flaming idiots...some just have a more logical approach. Our faith, whether placed in science, theology, or whatever else you might conjure, will always be circumstancial.

This is the ultimate in skepticism. We as humans must take some grounding in something that is absolutely true. Usually, it is agreed that we take the method of logical analysis to be something that provides an absolutely true result given true premises. In terms of faith and understanding, science and theology are completely different. While the scientific method is inherently unprovable because it is inductive, it provides theories that are readily testable using rules of logic, which are generally agreed upon to be fundamental to our understanding of this world. Theology, on the other hand, does not provide testable theories, and is therefore much more limited in its explanatory ability. Honestly, how can one truly determine which of two theological theories is true?

Theological theories are static in nature, while scientific theories evolve with increased testing.

IMO, truth is absolute, as you say. The way we arrive at that truth is subjective. But just because two differing ideas are both subjective does not mean they should both be rejected to the same degree. Some subjective conclusions are testable and withstand extensive testing. Others are either refuted by testing or unable to be tested at all. As long as we can claim at least one method as an absolute truth - such as logic - we can arrive closer to the absolute truth from our subjective conclusions.

While theology might be right on the spot from the start, it has very little potential to move closer to the absolute truth if it is not absolutely correct from the start.

Science usually is not correct right from the start, but it has great potential to move closer to the absolute truth because it is testable.

And this is why I place my trust in the scientific method rather than in theology to understand the world - because I believe it has greater potential to find the truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

I advocate the recognition of our subjective view on what definitive truth might be

POV from a limited capacity will always be subjective, no matter how intelligent, knowledgable, or learned one might be. We're all flaming idiots...some just have a more logical approach. Our faith, whether placed in science, theology, or whatever else you might conjure, will always be circumstancial.

This is the ultimate in skepticism. We as humans must take some grounding in something that is absolutely true. Usually, it is agreed that we take the method of logical analysis to be something that provides an absolutely true result given true premises. In terms of faith and understanding, science and theology are completely different. While the scientific method is inherently unprovable because it is inductive, it provides theories that are readily testable using rules of logic, which are generally agreed upon to be fundamental to our understanding of this world. Theology, on the other hand, does not provide testable theories, and is therefore much more limited in its explanatory ability. Honestly, how can one truly determine which of two theological theories is true?

Theological theories are static in nature, while scientific theories evolve with increased testing.

IMO, truth is absolute, as you say. The way we arrive at that truth is subjective. But just because two differing ideas are both subjective does not mean they should both be rejected to the same degree. Some subjective conclusions are testable and withstand extensive testing. Others are either refuted by testing or unable to be tested at all. As long as we can claim at least one method as an absolute truth - such as logic - we can arrive closer to the absolute truth from our subjective conclusions.

While theology might be right on the spot from the start, it has very little potential to move closer to the absolute truth if it is not absolutely correct from the start.

Science usually is not correct right from the start, but it has great potential to move closer to the absolute truth because it is testable.

And this is why I place my trust in the scientific method rather than in theology to understand the world - because I believe it has greater potential to find the truth.

I think that what is called absolute Truth is really a state of complete awareness, being as aware as the human brain can be aware, being in command of ones own full faculties the nature and state of which most people are completely unaware. It is not a statement of some factual reality, but the ability to be. Truth is not a thing, but a state of BEING. Science may help us study this but it is us who must actually experience being. You can't make yourself be by reading or being told. You enter BEING when you die to what you mistake is your real self, the ego. Science cannot help you die and be reborn. In fact, nothing the ego self does can lead to being. It is an accident of grace but you can git yourself out in the road by suffering, feeling what you really feel.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT
Human nature drives us all to find faith in the tangible...does it make them stronger or weaker for placing faith in the intangible?

Faith in the intangible doesn't necessarily indicate that a person is weaker (or stronger). But as an approach to determining objective truth, pondering the intangible is obviously wildly unreliable.

We humans are extremely poor at separating our emotions and our self interest from our perceptions. Science (a framework for pondering the tangible) provides a discipline that attempts (not always successfully) to separate human nature from nature. To the extent that "truth" is based on objectively measureable phenomena, and also to the extent that the methods of measurement are subject to disciplined debate (aka "peer review"), we can slowly, painfully see physical reality.

Absent such discipline, grounded in physical measurement, the human mind will fervently believe in what "feels" right, where "right" usually parallels inner needs of one sort or another.

One obvious example (there are an infinity of others) was the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the entire political left advocated a post-election approach that coincided with the interests of Al Gore? Similarly, do you really think that the right's precisely opposite approach, which coincided with the interests of GW Bush, was based on fundamental conservative principles? Do you really believe that one side or the other was lacking in intellectual honesty? That is, do you doubt that the left and right believed to their deepest cores that the approaches they advocted were right and just?

And consider: If the Florida results had been exactly the opposite (Gore holding a slight edge after the initial count), do you seriously doubt that the right would have been the ones demanding recounts, or that the left would have taken on the "equal protection" stance? And do you doubt that, holding these reversed roles, both sides would have fervently believed in these changed positions?

The point is, we humans seem unable to see, think, or feel beyond our self interest. And human history is filled to overflowing with examples of the tragedies we humans create because of our natures. I am not advocating the rejection of faith, but rather advocating recognition of the limits of faith.

I advocate the recognition of our subjective view on what definitive truth might be

POV from a limited capacity will always be subjective, no matter how intelligent, knowledgable, or learned one might be. We're all flaming idiots...some just have a more logical approach. Our faith, whether placed in science, theology, or whatever else you might conjure, will always be circumstancial.

This is the ultimate in skepticism. We as humans must take some grounding in something that is absolutely true. Usually, it is agreed that we take the method of logical analysis to be something that provides an absolutely true result given true premises. In terms of faith and understanding, science and theology are completely different. While the scientific method is inherently unprovable because it is inductive, it provides theories that are readily testable using rules of logic, which are generally agreed upon to be fundamental to our understanding of this world. Theology, on the other hand, does not provide testable theories, and is therefore much more limited in its explanatory ability. Honestly, how can one truly determine which of two theological theories is true?

Theological theories are static in nature, while scientific theories evolve with increased testing.

IMO, truth is absolute, as you say. The way we arrive at that truth is subjective. But just because two differing ideas are both subjective does not mean they should both be rejected to the same degree. Some subjective conclusions are testable and withstand extensive testing. Others are either refuted by testing or unable to be tested at all. As long as we can claim at least one method as an absolute truth - such as logic - we can arrive closer to the absolute truth from our subjective conclusions.

While theology might be right on the spot from the start, it has very little potential to move closer to the absolute truth if it is not absolutely correct from the start.

Science usually is not correct right from the start, but it has great potential to move closer to the absolute truth because it is testable.

And this is why I place my trust in the scientific method rather than in theology to understand the world - because I believe it has greater potential to find the truth.

I think that what is called absolute Truth is really a state of complete awareness, being as aware as the human brain can be aware, being in command of ones own full faculties the nature and state of which most people are completely unaware. It is not a statement of some factual reality, but the ability to be. Truth is not a thing, but a state of BEING. Science may help us study this but it is us who must actually experience being. You can't make yourself be by reading or being told. You enter BEING when you die to what you mistake is your real self, the ego. Science cannot help you die and be reborn. In fact, nothing the ego self does can lead to being. It is an accident of grace but you can git yourself out in the road by suffering, feeling what you really feel.

Whether truth is a thing or a state of being has no bearing on the usefulness of science in arriving at that thing or state of being when compared with theology.

I maintain that "While theology might be right on the spot from the start, it has very little potential to move closer to the absolute truth if it is not absolutely correct from the start.

Science usually is not correct right from the start, but it has great potential to move closer to the absolute truth because it is testable.

And this is why I place my trust in the scientific method rather than in theology to understand the world - because I believe it has greater potential to find the truth."

IMO, science is divorced from the pursuit of basic truths (such as whether we exist at all, whether we are stuck in a cycle of lives and our goal is to return to realization of the non-self). Science is concerned with the finding understanding in what we are presented while we live - such as evolution, medicine, physics, etc. It is not useful in pursuing these basic truths, because any theories would be untestable. This is where I think spirituality and philosophy come in.