Global Warming?

[madmax12]

(And... it was really BIG.)

I believe the dimensions are given in Cubits but can't recall what they were.

Cubit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[madmax12]

(ALL knowledge about it? No.)

Read the statement again.

I know we disagree, and you question whether I have any intelligence whatsoever, so I'm leaving myself wide open here...but...

What is it you think I missed?

 

[lockhaven]

some how i doubt that a cubit was the actual unit of measure, remember the bible koran and Tanakh were all translated from ancient text and were done so that the people of the day could understand.

 

[Egon]

I know we disagree, and you question whether I have any intelligence whatsoever, so I'm leaving myself wide open here...but...

What is it you think I missed?

Right at this moment every scientist is at the peak of his own disciple knowledge. It does not mean that he knows everything that is or will be known about his discipline.

 

[/pine]

Right at this moment every scientist is at the peak of his own disciple knowledge. It does not mean that he knows everything that is or will be known about his discipline.

That is what makes Richard Feynman's quote ("science is the belief in the ignorance of experts") so relevant...regardless of what some misguided buffoons think, believe or rely on.

 

[/pine]

some how i doubt that a cubit was the actual unit of measure, remember the bible koran and Tanakh were all translated from ancient text and were done so that the people of the day could understand.

...Translations from ancient texts...consider modern history books...They are no more accurate than the typical "eye witness"...of which you will get a multitude of differing accounts of the same event...

 

[lockhaven]

that is very true, recently I watched a show on PBS about the reporters during the civil war. It showed how the original drawings were changed to make the public see the war differently, more in a positive light. Funny news is the same today not much fact just a twisted pile of crap

 

[/pine]

that is very true, recently I watched a show on PBS about the reporters during the civil war. It showed how the original drawings were changed to make the public see the war differently, more in a positive light. Funny news is the same today not much fact just a twisted pile of crap

Exactly...There is a show that airs on DSC or one one of the other cable channels that makes a point of "recounting what transpired"...a group of individuals were outfitted with helmet cameras to record what the individuals were actually seeing...they were led through a course/trail...that was deliberately set up to make the point...
...After 30 days the same individuals were debriefed on what they "had seen"...the difference between on what they "remembered seeing" and what the cameras recorded were so diverse it borders on absurd...and what if any "recorded history" is based on anything but "eye witness" accounts or those that have been related post hence...?

You make a good point about "news"...even in this day and age...initial news reports are often 180 degrees from what actually transpired...

 

[toppop52]

Please, let's not knock the Neanderthal's.! Many of us have Neanderthal Genes present!:shocked:

Also note that the Scientist of this moment are all at the peak of their scientific knowledge.:cool2:

Anybody know how Noah got all those animals and food into the Ark?:thumbsup:

Did I speak of Noah? Don't think so.

The scientists before Copernicus were also at the peak of their fields and knowledge.

Many of us have a Mongolian Spot as well....

 

[IslandTractor]

But you act surprised. Were your claims of knowledge of religion false? Were you not aware that God is considered all-powerful, and can do literally anything? What else have you not learned or forgotten? No wonder you are ring leader in insulting people of faith..you claim to be well studied, but you have mislead yourself. Do you remember that proof is considered the death of faith, and faith is thought to be desired greatly by God in most religions? If you remember these basic things, you can answer at least some of your own questions. But that will deny you an opportunity for some thinly veiled insults, but you will find other opportunities.

As the ayatollahs call us infidels, you guys call anyone who won't bow to the consensus "deniers." So it is you guys who are like the ayatollahs. And people like me who continue to study the science are likewise smeared.

It is difficult to have an argument over the validity of Biblical stories when one participant has faith in religion and the other doesn't. My point is that the "God is all powerful" card essentially stops the argument and means that whomever is in a position to speak from a position of religious authority decides unilaterally when the discussion ends. I personally respect others rights to believe religious writings either literally or as a general guide as they see fit. I think you know that I am not religious at all and therefore the Bible to me is a significant book full of accumulated wisdom of the ages (starting a few thousand years ago and up until 400AD or so as I recall when the New Testament was finished) but hardly an authoritative reference on matters of the physical world. That it offers valid guidance on ethical and spiritual issues does not in my thinking enhance the value of or legitimacy of sections like Genesis. If anyone insists that Genesis as written is the absolute truth and requires no experimental confirmation that makes further discussion of paleobiology, astronomy and many other areas of science rather pointless. If Noah's story cannot be tested by looking for evidence of a great global flood or if claims that all animals two by two were loaded and kept on an ark cannot be subjected to investigation or thought experiments then it is pointless to have the discussion. I accept the Bible as a great book but not as absolutely or literally true nor incontrovertible. From my perspective it is clearly a great work of many mortal men collecting morality tales and necessary myths for a holistic world view who made contributions over millennia. As all men make mistakes and believe things which in later times can be demonstrated to be untrue (flat earth, sun rotating around earth etc), I also believe the authors who contributed to the bible did their best but were often wrong especially in matters of science. YMMV.

I reject your effort to turn the tables on Ayatollahs. Ayatollahs enforce the party line and brook no deviation from orthodoxy. Fundamentalist Jews, Christians and Muslims are similar in this regard. Atheists or agnostics or even liberal members of the three mentioned religions typically allow for individual interpretation and questioning of the relevance and accuracy of biblical stories and edicts. Rejecting the bible or qoran as infallible is hardly something that qualifies us as Ayatollahs.

 

[cqaigy2]

You make a good point about "news"...even in this day and age...initial news reports are often 180 degrees from what actually transpired...

Don't know about 180 degrees, but it is usually sensationalized and exaggerated to increase ratings and viewership. An example is the reporting on all the "rage" over a video that was produced here in the United States. The news is fixated on and repeatedly reports on the same incidents and it distorts our view of what is going on around the world. I remember some years ago having been away from tv for a few years because of some work i was doing, and watching the tv for the first time and watching a news report that i didn't recognize as a news report, it took me a few moments to comprehend that i wasn't watching a commercial or some kind of entertainment but actually a news report.

 

[turnkey4099]

How is that so different...from your own view?

time...did it.

The difference is a small matter of facts and evidence vice "faith".

Harry K

 

[2LaneCruzer]

It is difficult to have an argument over the validity of Biblical stories when one participant has faith in religion and the other doesn't. My point is that the "God is all powerful" card essentially stops the argument and means that whomever is in a position to speak from a position of religious authority decides unilaterally when the discussion ends. I personally respect others rights to believe religious writings either literally or as a general guide as they see fit. I think you know that I am not religious at all and therefore the Bible to me is a significant book full of accumulated wisdom of the ages (starting a few thousand years ago and up until 400AD or so as I recall when the New Testament was finished) but hardly an authoritative reference on matters of the physical world. That it offers valid guidance on ethical and spiritual issues does not in my thinking enhance the value of or legitimacy of sections like Genesis. If anyone insists that Genesis as written is the absolute truth and requires no experimental confirmation that makes further discussion of paleobiology, astronomy and many other areas of science rather pointless. If Noah's story cannot be tested by looking for evidence of a great global flood or if claims that all animals two by two were loaded and kept on an ark cannot be subjected to investigation or thought experiments then it is pointless to have the discussion. I accept the Bible as a great book but not as absolutely or literally true nor incontrovertible. From my perspective it is clearly a great work of many mortal men collecting morality tales and necessary myths for a holistic world view who made contributions over millennia. As all men make mistakes and believe things which in later times can be demonstrated to be untrue (flat earth, sun rotating around earth etc), I also believe the authors who contributed to the bible did their best but were often wrong especially in matters of science. YMMV.

I reject your effort to turn the tables on Ayatollahs. Ayatollahs enforce the party line and brook no deviation from orthodoxy. Fundamentalist Jews, Christians and Muslims are similar in this regard. Atheists or agnostics or even liberal members of the three mentioned religions typically allow for individual interpretation and questioning of the relevance and accuracy of biblical stories and edicts. Rejecting the bible or qoran as infallible is hardly something that qualifies us as Ayatollahs.

My compliments, IT, that is one of the most profound things I have seen you post. I am in agreement with what you say, and the way in which it was said. Clear, cogent and respectful. Regarding Noah's flood, I have seen a documentary or two on that subject, and there is geological evidence that a huge flood did occur in the area; something about a natural dam being breached and waters flooding in from the ocean to a large inland lake. Can't remember details, but when I get time maybe I can research it. In any case, it didn't cover the whole world, but it did perhaps cover the world as known to some of the ancient writers.

I have have struggled with the bible vs. science argument, but I look at the bible much as I.T. and do not have a problem with the apparent conflict. I do not and cannot accept the bible literally without rejecting science.

 

[EE_Bota]

It is difficult to have an argument over the validity of Biblical stories when one participant has faith in religion and the other doesn't. My point is that the "God is all powerful" card essentially stops the argument and means that whomever is in a position to speak from a position of religious authority decides unilaterally when the discussion ends.

Look at this: "My point is that the "God is all powerful" card essentially stops the argument and means that whomever is in a position to speak from a position of religious authority decides unilaterally when the discussion ends." If your side of the "argument" requires your opponent to completely abandon the most important aspect of God, your argument is either weak as water, or completely unwarranted. Why don't you just post in advance all the salient features of God and others in the Bible that you require to be disabled in order for your debate program to run without crashing.

I personally respect others rights to believe religious writings either literally or as a general guide as they see fit.

You should market to the military the camouflage you use to hide that respect, save the pattern designed to hide your ayatollah comment.

...but hardly an authoritative reference on matters of the physical world. That it offers valid guidance on ethical and spiritual issues does not in my thinking enhance the value of or legitimacy of sections like Genesis.

Well I do rely on my Animal Science and Electrical Engineering degrees and endless study since for some clues to the physical world, but I find parts of Genesis remarkable in many ways. I could debate either side if all we are talking about is debate. It is you who is bound only to the science side...I am bound to both.

If anyone insists that Genesis as written is the absolute truth and requires no experimental confirmation that makes further discussion of paleobiology, astronomy and many other areas of science rather pointless.

But you are telling me what my earlier statements were meant to tell you (collectively): scientists should find something more practical to do with their time than debate evidence of an all-powerful God who is thought to value faith so highly that logically He would obscure all evidence.

I also believe the authors who contributed to the bible did their best but were often wrong especially in matters of science. YMMV.

I have studied science and religion side by side from the beginning. I was trying to learn as much as I could in preparation for a rich life; I was not keeping a eye out for grind stones, having few axes in need of grinding.

I reject your effort to turn the tables on Ayatollahs. Ayatollahs enforce the party line and brook no deviation from orthodoxy.

I'm not turning the tables on Ayatollahs; I'm turning the tables on you.
"Brooking no deviation from orthodoxy" is what folks on your side of the debate (including yourself) are doing when they call people like me "deniers" (infidels.) So you have to reject the truth, not my efforts.

Atheists or agnostics or even liberal members of the three mentioned religions typically allow for individual interpretation and questioning of the relevance and accuracy of biblical stories and edicts.

The above statement makes me laugh. It is very fluffy. You question the Bible and insult believers all the time, so that cannot be in question.

If you wish to make a point about something in the Bible that can only be sustained so long as God is not godlike and is virtually powerless, or completely non-existent, then I suppose you could always set that up as a hypothetical and see if anyone is willing to participate in such inane debate.

Rejecting the bible or qoran as infallible is hardly something that qualifies us as Ayatollahs.

Well then, it is fortunate that no one made that point here. But my comparison of "denier" to "infidel" when used against people like me still stands.

 

[madmax12]

It is difficult to have an argument over the validity of Biblical stories when one participant has faith in religion and the other doesn't. My point is that the "God is all powerful" card essentially stops the argument and means that whomever is in a position to speak from a position of religious authority decides unilaterally when the discussion ends. I personally respect others rights to believe religious writings either literally or as a general guide as they see fit. I think you know that I am not religious at all and therefore the Bible to me is a significant book full of accumulated wisdom of the ages (starting a few thousand years ago and up until 400AD or so as I recall when the New Testament was finished) but hardly an authoritative reference on matters of the physical world. That it offers valid guidance on ethical and spiritual issues does not in my thinking enhance the value of or legitimacy of sections like Genesis. If anyone insists that Genesis as written is the absolute truth and requires no experimental confirmation that makes further discussion of paleobiology, astronomy and many other areas of science rather pointless. If Noah's story cannot be tested by looking for evidence of a great global flood or if claims that all animals two by two were loaded and kept on an ark cannot be subjected to investigation or thought experiments then it is pointless to have the discussion. I accept the Bible as a great book but not as absolutely or literally true nor incontrovertible. From my perspective it is clearly a great work of many mortal men collecting morality tales and necessary myths for a holistic world view who made contributions over millennia. As all men make mistakes and believe things which in later times can be demonstrated to be untrue (flat earth, sun rotating around earth etc), I also believe the authors who contributed to the bible did their best but were often wrong especially in matters of science. YMMV.

I reject your effort to turn the tables on Ayatollahs. Ayatollahs enforce the party line and brook no deviation from orthodoxy. Fundamentalist Jews, Christians and Muslims are similar in this regard. Atheists or agnostics or even liberal members of the three mentioned religions typically allow for individual interpretation and questioning of the relevance and accuracy of biblical stories and edicts. Rejecting the bible or qoran as infallible is hardly something that qualifies us as Ayatollahs.

Respect is important.

Forget religion.

My purpose is to figure out what is true. Is the climate on its own? Is the earth on its own, aside from man's influence? In a vast universe, driven by time and chance only, where all that is, came about without assistance or thought... Could man, an insignificant chemical accident, brought about by the universe of chance irrelevance...an event without significance, could man even matter?

This insignificant accident...goes all chaotic, and the earth dissappears. So what? In the chaotic universe of random irrelevance... It doesn't matter, nor could it be judged...by what? Judged by chance?

We, a ridiculous chance accident... Are somehow responsible for the chance universe that pooped us out? Why? Why isn't it the ants responsibility? Or gorillas? Or some other planets accidental race?

What if our view of past climate is false, our readings all a mistake? What if we make a conscious decision to alter climate events based upon faulty studies... Why would we consciously alter a random, chaotic universe? The natural thing to do, would be to allow randomness to just have at it. Look at all the chaotic universe produced without any conscious thought or plan. Could such a universe really rely on our insignificant anything?

How many chaotic events happened to earth before a single man ever tried to measure time in its body? Things that take time to happen... Are we certain we are measuring them accurately?

We can't agree on why our economy is where it is. That's present day mathematics. Easily measured. No agreement. Zero connection to religion.

We can't measure math.

What's the weather going to be next month...six months... Whenever?

Respect.

I have questions.

Anyone who can genuinely think, should have serious questions about everything. There is more to know than can be known.

In the universe of randomness we are forced to assume the rest...

That's guessing. Hypothesizing? Faith? Even with zero religion...faith is present.

For those that disagree, with that view, to be told they are less intelligent, backward, etc...

Respect.

I know I have a lot to learn. We all do.

Even if you think I'm an idiot. Don't treat me like one. Even if you are right. Treat me with respect.