Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 12:04:18 AMI could explain it to them in a matter of hours if they were reasonably bright and I spoke the language.
No, you could not.  They saw the world very differently.  They have no vocabulary, no language, no concept of cause and effect to understand modern science.

Well, that was partially a bit of braggadoccio on my part, but the fact is that I could probably actually get pretty far in such an endeavor. I'm incredibly gifted in the effective use of language. You're not dealing with some naif here who just doesn't get things like cultural barriers. I actually know what I'm talking about here.

Furthermore, the people who actually wrote the Bible were probably among the most intellectually gifted individuals of their time. Simply the fact that they were literate during that age suggests a higher than usual degree of intellectual curiosity and cognitive flexibility. Such a person would be far more receptive to alien ideas than the average guy. It might be a hard set of concepts to communicate, but I would be dealing with some of the finest minds of the age. It wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge at all, particularly for a person with such talents and gifts as my own.

Like I said, if I were dealing with an individual from that age who was reasonably bright, I could probably explain at least the basics of genetics within a relatively short time. Granted, it would be more challenging to get this through to someone of average intelligence.

QuoteAnd what Greek society is that?  When?  Are you talking about classical Athens?  Or say, the Greek society of the middle ages?

After the Muslims took over?

QuoteSCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.  Not even in the same park.  Its not apples and oranges.  It's rocks and life.  Two different deals.  Thou shalt not compare them.

Unless thou art Christiaan Huygens!

"The world is my fatherland, science is my religion."

Amen!

Well, that was partially a bit of braggadoccio on my part, but the fact is that I could probably actually get pretty far in such an endeavor. I'm incredibly gifted in the effective use of language. You're not dealing with some naif here who just doesn't get things like cultural barriers. I actually know what I'm talking about here.

Umm, how do I say this politely?  I don't.  That is not braggadoccio, it's ignorance.  The past is NOT like the present, except in different clothing.  Its an entirely different way of thinking.

Look, you look out the window and see a tree.  You think of things like "roots' 'leaves' 'photosynthesis' 'genus phila.'  A person in say 12th Century times would see that tree and think it was a lesson from god.  That every living thing was on earth to teach a lesson about life.  Check out some of the Middle Ages' Bestiaries and see what I mean.  Its not science, its allegory and morals.

This reflected the belief that the world itself was the Word of God, and that every living thing had its own special meaning. (wiki, and a rather good article to start with)

You come talking 'modern science' and classification and method to them they would think you are talking jibberish.


Furthermore, the people who actually wrote the Bible were probably among the most intellectually gifted individuals of their time. Simply the fact that they were literate during that age suggests a higher than usual degree of intellectual curiosity and cognitive flexibility.

Got any proof of that?  Oh no, as it turns out the Bible followers spend centuries wiping all that other stuff off the face of the earth, like the burning of Great Library at Alexandra for one. The reason its called the Dark Ages is because of the huge volume of information that was lost.  Its like I took all the music of the 1960's and got rid of it, leaving only 1910 Fruitgum Company, and that becomes the standard.  For the record, I think that the Qur'ān is better written as a complete work, far more stylized, and some of the best stuff in the Bible, like the Flood Story, was just lifted whole cloth from Epic of Gilgamesh during the captivity in Babylon.  Because we know the Hebrews did not have that story before the captivity, but had it with them on their return.

some of the finest minds of the age
Were trying to make gold our of lead, when they weren't Kowtowing to that whole 'Divine Right of Kings' crap.  Oh, and burning witches.  So good luck with Theodoric of York and all.  I don't think that Monty Python (massively and extremely well educated beyond what most Americans can even understand - Graham, John and Eric were at Cambridge together, while Terry Jones and Michael were at Oxford) was that far off in the Holy Grail.




It wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge at all, particularly for a person with such talents and gifts as my own.
Modesty and humility chief among them I'm sure.


Science is not my religion.  Nor do I know any scientists (and I worked for several years at a DOE Lab, so I know a few) who think of it that way.  Exactly the opposite.  Religion, i.e. things based on faith rather than proof, I ain't got none of.

tekla, that Hol Grail bit is completely off topic!

Let's get back to the New Testament.

    Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
    The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
    Brian: You're all different!
    The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
    Man in Crowd: I'm not...
    The Crowd: Shhh!

Ahh yes, blessed are the cheesemakers.

Perhaps, Silk, given the incontrovertible nature of your great wisdom, learning and the ineffability of your 3rd year in college you might have become a prophet, a master, teacher in that world you wish to go to and explain in ten minutes the learning of the modern world.

Of course, one truly must expect the price that could come from that as well.

Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 10:24:18 AMUmm, how do I say this politely?  I don't.  That is not braggadoccio, it's ignorance.

It could also be an historical perspective that you were not previously aware of. Whether or not I'm sufficiently conversant in it to discuss it intelligibly with a person who has a PhD in the subject is a different matter altogether.

QuoteThe past is NOT like the present, except in different clothing.  Its an entirely different way of thinking.

1) The clothing wasn't all that different either. Don't believe what you see in the picture books. It's true they didn't have trousers then, save for a few nomadic horsemen and Chinese infantry, but they liked for their clothes to fit and keep them warm. The styles, tools and available materials were different, but their priorities were largely the same.

2) The degree to which their thinking differed would depend entirely upon their background and mine.

QuoteLook, you look out the window and see a tree.  You think of things like "roots' 'leaves' 'photosynthesis' 'genus phila.'  A person in say 12th Century times would see that tree and think it was a lesson from god.

No. He'd see a tree, and he could probably instruct you in several different methods for getting its roots out of the ground if he had any agricultural background. If he were formally educated in the subject, he could probably explain it to you in terms of trigonometric functions. He'd probably know more about the subject overall than you do.

QuoteYou come talking 'modern science' and classification and method to them they would think you are talking jibberish.

That wouldn't be an ideal place to start. I was thinking of beginning with simple analogies.

QuoteGot any proof of that?  Oh no, as it turns out the Bible followers spend centuries wiping all that other stuff off the face of the earth, like the burning of Great Library at Alexandra for one. The reason its called the Dark Ages is because of the huge volume of information that was lost.  Its like I took all the music of the 1960's and got rid of it, leaving only 1910 Fruitgum Company, and that becomes the standard.

This actually started with Emperor Justinian I. He was also responsible for shutting down the schools of philosophy. Justinian was nothing but a tyrant, pure and simple. There was nothing more to him. He comes from the same bag as Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Kim Jong Il. It was because of his handiwork and that of others like him that the Catholic Church became as corrupt and evil as it did.

Quotesome of the finest minds of the age
Were trying to make gold our of lead, when they weren't Kowtowing to that whole 'Divine Right of Kings' crap.  Oh, and burning witches.  So good luck with Theodoric of York and all.

When the schools of philosophy were still open, the thinking was getting pretty advanced.

QuoteScience is not my religion.  Nor do I know any scientists (and I worked for several years at a DOE Lab, so I know a few) who think of it that way.

Christiaan Huygens!

"We might rise from this limited Earth and,
looking from above, thinking, whether nature all its
splendour and glory had wasted to this heaply of dirt.
So we will, like traveller in other far away lands,
get a better judgement about the things at home and
form judgement of any thing by its worthiness.
What the world calls great we will admire less and
all the nullities most of the people set their heart on
we despise noble, because we will know, that myriads of
settled and equally good fitted worlds like ours exist."

I want to have his baby! Christian Huygens is probably at least distantly related to a goodly percentage of all of today's nerds, geeks, hackers, and MIT wizz-kids.

QuoteReligion, i.e. things based on faith rather than proof, I ain't got none of.

The degree to which this is actually true tends to vary, actually.

However, scientists don't go about "proving" things. This is the first thing you're taught in an undergraduate biology course.

Posted on: October 13, 2008, 01:32:57 pm

---

Quote from: Nichole on October 13, 2008, 11:59:52 AM
Perhaps, Silk, given the incontrovertible nature of your great wisdom, learning and the ineffability of your 3rd year in college you might have become a prophet, a master, teacher in that world you wish to go to and explain in ten minutes the learning of the modern world.

Of course, one truly must expect the price that could come from that as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=related

I win.

Quote from: Nikki on October 12, 2008, 10:56:50 PM

Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PMNo, my statements have nothing to do with theistic evolution. Evolution is a process. It follows rules/natural laws the same as any other process in the universe. This has nothing to do with the existence of God or any other potential "intelligent designer." It is merely how the universe works. Now, these natural laws do appear to decay over time and the orderliness of the processes move into disorder; but the laws still apply.

Purpose requires a purpose giver. Design requires a designer. Evolution isn't a process it's the observed result of random mutation and competition for resources. When you talk about purpose or design in evolution you are talking about theistic evolution. Organisms don't even exist to reproduce, they simply exist. Most organisms reproduce simply because reproduction is required for a species with a finite individual lifespan to continue to exist past the lifespans of it's members. There is nothing wrong with or against evolution in an organism that doesn't reproduce.

I'm sorry, but where are you getting this ridiculous view? A purpose does not require a "purpose giver." The eyes serve the purpose of providing us with sight. The penis serves the purpose of releasing liquid waste from the body as well as transferring sperm from the male body into the female body. The nervous system serves the purpose of transmitting signals to and from the brain. None of this has anything to do with someone giving it a purpose. It is merely the purpose these parts serve.

Physical Laws of the Universe follow in the same way.

Quote from: Nikki on October 12, 2008, 10:56:50 PM

Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PMI will happily accept an apology for accusing me of having a view of evolution that is fused with my religion, however. You see, I don't personally believe in the Theory of Evolution. I believe in adaptation, and that it does incorporate a broad scope that includes aspects of the Theory of Evolution, but I do not personally believe in the whole of evolution as dictated by the Theory, neither from a theistic standpoint nor otherwise.

Belief is not required to have a view. I don't believe in your god but I still have a view of it. You don't believe in evolution but you still have a view of it. Your talk of purpose and design in evolution clearly shows the way your religious beliefs have warped your understanding of evolution. Maybe instead of being so arrogant as to tell me what atheistic views of evolution are then demand an apology when corrected, you should listen and understand.

You don't even understand what I believe, yet you feel qualified to tell me what is and is not natural or legitimate within my beliefs?

Let me give this to you in simple terms.

My boyfriend is an agnostic, who leans heavily towards an atheistic view. He is not absolutely certain that there is no God, but he is inclined to believe there is no God. He also believes in, and has spent a good bit of time studying, evolution. It ties into his field of study, which is Psychology. His view on evolution does not incorporate theistic views, at all. He, himself, can tell you that evolution has a purpose, and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is any kind of intelligent designer.

Now, let me clarify something for you. I am not the one lacking understanding here. You owe me a profound apologize for your arrogance and your ignorance, as well as your insults. Are you really dumb enough to believe people are incapable of viewing something without it being colored by their own personal beliefs?

Posted on: October 13, 2008, 02:41:14 pm

---

Quote from: Silk on October 13, 2008, 09:42:53 AM

Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 12:04:18 AMI could explain it to them in a matter of hours if they were reasonably bright and I spoke the language.
No, you could not.  They saw the world very differently.  They have no vocabulary, no language, no concept of cause and effect to understand modern science.

Well, that was partially a bit of braggadoccio on my part, but the fact is that I could probably actually get pretty far in such an endeavor. I'm incredibly gifted in the effective use of language. You're not dealing with some naif here who just doesn't get things like cultural barriers. I actually know what I'm talking about here.

Furthermore, the people who actually wrote the Bible were probably among the most intellectually gifted individuals of their time. Simply the fact that they were literate during that age suggests a higher than usual degree of intellectual curiosity and cognitive flexibility. Such a person would be far more receptive to alien ideas than the average guy. It might be a hard set of concepts to communicate, but I would be dealing with some of the finest minds of the age. It wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge at all, particularly for a person with such talents and gifts as my own.

Like I said, if I were dealing with an individual from that age who was reasonably bright, I could probably explain at least the basics of genetics within a relatively short time. Granted, it would be more challenging to get this through to someone of average intelligence.

I don't know about the Old Testament, but most of the New Testament was technically written by scribes, who copied down what the attributed authors dictated to them. It is not a given that they were all completely literate (at least two of the original twelve Disciples were mere fisherman).

QuoteAnd what Greek society is that?  When?  Are you talking about classical Athens?  Or say, the Greek society of the middle ages?

Your absurd, intentional misunderstanding shouts troll.

QuoteSCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.

Science is not inherently religion, though like anything, it is entirely possible to worship it as religion.

That aside, it is not inherent that science and religion run contrary to each other.

QuoteLook, you look out the window and see a tree.  You think of things like "roots' 'leaves' 'photosynthesis' 'genus phila.'  A person in say 12th Century times would see that tree and think it was a lesson from god.  That every living thing was on earth to teach a lesson about life.  Check out some of the Middle Ages' Bestiaries and see what I mean.  Its not science, its allegory and morals.

One issue with your example is that we're not comparing the Middle Ages with modern time. We're comparing 2000+ years ago with modern times. Frankly, southeastern Europe was more intellectually advanced 2000 years ago than it was 1000 years ago. It was the Greeks who discovered concepts like the atom and pythagoreon theorum. They would be more likely to comprehend modern concepts of genetics than scholars of the middle ages, though I am highly inclined to say it would take far more than a few hours to explain it to them, unless you found one who was possibly the greatest intellectual genius of all time.

QuoteGot any proof of that?  Oh no, as it turns out the Bible followers spend centuries wiping all that other stuff off the face of the earth, like the burning of Great Library at Alexandra for one. The reason its called the Dark Ages is because of the huge volume of information that was lost.  Its like I took all the music of the 1960's and got rid of it, leaving only 1910 Fruitgum Company, and that becomes the standard.  For the record, I think that the Qur'ān is better written as a complete work, far more stylized, and some of the best stuff in the Bible, like the Flood Story, was just lifted whole cloth from Epic of Gilgamesh during the captivity in Babylon.  Because we know the Hebrews did not have that story before the captivity, but had it with them on their return.

Again, Tekla, you're obsessing over the Dark Ages. If you'd actually bothered to read the discussion going on, you would realize that we have not once mentioned what people in the dark ages would think. The most recently written books of the Bible were written just under 2000 years ago.

Considering your the only one who has reached for the word dumb, you can consider the discussion over effective immediately. But I was under the impression you were a lesbian.

Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 13, 2008, 02:59:42 PMMy boyfriend...

In the interest of removing a bit of the heat and a lot of the targeted name-calling and reporting by other members calling for an end of it, the thread is now locked.

I win.

Nichole

I think it is time to tone down the retoric and personal insults.

Lets try to keep this topic civil.


Sarah L.