Challenge

[Unorthodox Thesis]

For me it is. and for you it is't. Its that simple.

Christianity is a serious faith that procedes from

your heart. Religions are something you can try.

Chrsitianity will transform you, and you'll never

want to go back.

[arben]

Anyway, I come to the conclusion that the Old Testament is no longer binding on mankind because that's what the New Testament says, and I believe the New Testament to be the final revealed word of God (The Final edition if that helps you out any) and I believe that mankind can learn of the past from the entire Bible, but as the New Testament was the final revalation to mankind, then that is the one that binds us today.

Take care and please consider strongly your motivation when considering eternity.

So what your saying is: Old Tastement Out and New Tastement in, right?

[Stellar]

For me it is. and for you it is't. Its that simple.

Christianity is a serious faith that procedes from

your heart. Religions are something you can try.

Chrsitianity will transform you, and you'll never

want to go back.

Will it? I was christian...

[oy-]

For me it is. and for you it is't. Its that simple.

Christianity is a serious faith that procedes from

your heart. Religions are something you can try.

Chrsitianity will transform you, and you'll never

want to go back.

So your "proof" isn't "the bible says", it's actually "Norman says the bible says".

A lot of people's "proof" is "the bible says", and at the risk of repeating myself, the bible doesn't "say" anything. Call me a "skeptic", but i'm willing to wager noones bible has ever uttered a word. I think the fact there are braille Bible's is proof of that.

The bible doesn't "say" Norman. It's you and many others who "say", and a lot of what you and many others "say", is based on hearsay, hearsay written in a book.

It appears you're right when you say "Christianity is a serious faith that procedes from your heart" because to me Christianity is either in your blood or it isn't, as for "Chrsitianity will transform you", I'm blissfully happy that tranfusion is voluntary.

Edited July 23, 2004 by oy-

[BurnSide]

For me it is. and for you it is't. Its that simple.

Christianity is a serious faith that procedes from

your heart. Religions are something you can try.

Chrsitianity will transform you, and you'll never

want to go back.

Will it? I was christian...

So was I.

Then i discovered the truth.

[oy-]

Call me a "skeptic", but i'm willing to wager noones bible has never uttered a word.

"never" in the sentence quoted should read as "ever".

[Stellar]

For me it is. and for you it is't. Its that simple.

Christianity is a serious faith that procedes from

your heart. Religions are something you can try.

Chrsitianity will transform you, and you'll never

want to go back.

Will it? I was christian...

So was I.

Then i discovered the truth.

You discovered the truth? Well, my reason is... I grew out of it.

Edited July 24, 2004 by Stellar

[BurnSide]

Bad choice of words i think.

What i mean is, i came to the realisation that i was following a religion that didn't even make sense. It completely contradicts itself around every corner and is generally used by weak people to justify existance. Since i did not need this justification, i left religion and found science, my one true friend. Science doesn't stear you wrong, doesn't contradict, doesn't make up stories etc.

[Todd]

BurnSide since you don't seem to feel too beholden to diplomacy yourself when it comes to the genuine beliefs of those of faith, you'll understand that I won't feel too bad about pointing out that science has indeed done all of the things that you claim that (What...EVERYONE who believes differently than you?) it has'nt.

[BurnSide]

Like what?

Granted scientists can make mistakes, such as Stephen Hawking on his original theory of black holes which he recently backflipped on. However, this is PROGRESS. Science does not hold on to it's original ideals, it changes as technology progresses.

[aquatus1]

Science doesn't stear you wrong, doesn't contradict, doesn't make up stories etc.

I would have to cautiously agree. The job of science is to gather data and form theories which explain how that data works together. It is a purely imperical, highly objective process.

Granted, however, that it is human scientists that have to interpret this data. And, as humans, they are not infallible. They can be incorrect. But there are safety measures specifically put in place to help keep this from happening.

Part of the problem is that far to many people use faith to believe in science! What do I mean by this? I mean that few people actually get off their duff long enough to truly understand what science is about, instead prefering to take the lazy way out and simply taking anything that a scientist says on faith, as if the scientists were some sort of higher power. If a scientist makes a statement, such as "Maybe we should cut down on carbs." you then have a choice. You can either read up a little on the science and understand why that statement was made, or you can take it on faith and start running around claiming "Carbs are evil! Go Atkins!"

A scientist doesn't steer you wrong. He or she makes the best analysis of the data they have. If you choose to pin your entire faith on it, that is your choice. Faith is not a part of science.

Science often contradicts. Why? Because, as I said before, a scientist makes the best analysis of the data they have. Scientists are not omniscient. There are problems that sometimes contradict, and sometimes seem to, but do not. A contradiction is actually good news for a scientist, because it is a very obvious flag to a problem in a field known for the effort required to find hidden glitches.

And lastly, science does not make up stories. While a few scientists may be guilty of this, I blame, in 90 percent of all cases, the media for making up the stories that usualy create the confusion around scientific developments.

Oh, Todd, have you had a chance to read The Easter Challenge yet? It is on page seven of this thread.

Edited July 24, 2004 by aquatus1

[Stellar]

Also note that science now is very much more objective than it ever was.

[Byuu94]

Also note that science now is very much more objective than it ever was.

Science may be objective but I doubt scientists will ever be. Very few are willing to admit their mistakes, or change their theories to fit new evidence. Only truly objective scientists, like Mr. Hawking, are willing to say that they were wrong. Usually it is the great scientists who take risks an some times work on the edges of science. (Edison made a machine he claimed could be used to talk to the dead.)

Also more often than not, it is the pupils of the greats that are stubborn and use only the evidence that back their claims, and throw all else aside.

Only the wolf knows the truth ---->

[jpalz]

Eeeee.... it says cat on the code dude, not a wolf per se

[Stellar]

Oh jeez. Just keep finding more and more excuses. The religious people simply cant accept that at the very least, the Bible is not litteral, so they start huge conspiracies and accuse scientists of lieing in order to further evolution which if on scientist can prove is wrong, he would become one of the most famous scientists in history. Makes alot of sense. But these guys accusing evolution of being false and believing creationism is right always admit their mistakes when they make them. Or so I'm told. They also say they just havent made any mistakes yet. *Sigh*

[aquatus1]

Very few are willing to admit their mistakes, or change their theories to fit new evidence.

Really now, these generalizations are starting to get a little irritating. What exactly are you basing this statement on? That scientists aren't aren't on the doorsteps of academia everyday shouting mea culpa for their errors? I don't suppose that it has occured to you that mistakes are so common in science that they are a matter of course? Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of research, at a minimum a good ninety percent of it, is doing experiments and having them fail? I can take, and often does, years for a scientists to find just the right combination of factors and equations to make up a successful theory. Even then, they understand that they do not have all the information, and that their theory might well be replaced one day. Remember that a disagreement between scientists does not make a theory right or wrong.

Enough with the childish accusations. If you are going to make statements such as these, then please, provide an example of a known mistake that is still being held up as a fact by scientists.

[Stellar]

Aquatus... you've just fueled them by telling them that errors are common in science. They're gonna take it as "See! Everything in science is an error! Aquatus said it! We won!"

[oy-]

Science may be objective but I doubt scientists will ever be. Very few are willing to admit their mistakes, or change their theories to fit new evidence.

Sounds to me like those of "faith" may well be scientists.

[aquatus1]

Aquatus... you've just fueled them by telling them that errors are common in science. They're gonna take it as "See! Everything in science is an error! Aquatus said it! We won!"

Oops, my bad...;-)

ah, well, it was fun while it lasted, but now that the conspiracy has been revealed, it's time for all of us pretending that science is credible to go back to finding the Philosopher's Stone, and abandon that silly Evolution thing. Hah! I can't believe how many people we got to fall for that!

Edited July 24, 2004 by aquatus1

[Todd]

About the "Easter Challenge" aquatus, yes I have heard of it and look forward to meeting it as soon as I've got the time to complete the narratives into one singular cohesive whole utilizing the parameters stated and making it easy (Or at least as easy as possible) to understand. I'm aware of this particular difficulty as it was something that gave me some trouble wrapping my mind around before I became a Christian during my research phase. I did'nt give up on it until a logical narrative could be constructed that would in no way betray the truthfullness of the scriptures, for as you implied, if it was in error, then what could that say for the truth of The Bible? As it's been years since I worked it out in a satisfactory fashion I need the time to reconstruct it; I've been busy with the mundane facets of "everyday life".

And now, a few not so proud moments in science to consider......

1) 1776; England: A certain Mrs. Mary Toft convinced a group of "scientific" men that she had given birth to rabbits. The entire country was swept away with the tale (No pun intended) cynical writer Alexander Pope and King George 1 included. The Kings Anatomist, Royal Surgeon, The Secretary to the Prince of Wales, and surgeon John Howard were all duped by Mrs. Toft and her husband Joshua even under the determined gaze of their "scientific" scrutiny. Only after a constant watch at a London Hospital ordered by investigator Sir Richard Manningham, where Mrs. Toft failed to produce more of her "bunny babies" did she and her husband admit to the hoax, and that only after stern questioning. The two left London in disgrace. This story is on file at the U.S. Army Medical Library in Washington.

2) 1838; U.S.: Workmen digging in Grave Creek Mound at Moundsville, West Virginia found relics believed to be prehistoric in nature. The find was left unguarded for 24 hours until the "experts" arrived and focused their attention on a stone tablet with an inscription on it. For nearly 100 years scientist after scientist "deciphered" the strange writing on the stone tablet, each claiming to be the authoritative source on the matter. Finally, in 1930 State Historical Society Head Andrew Price happened to take a cockeyed look and found that it was english! It said "Bill Stump's Stone, October 16,1838". Bill Stump was a humorous character in the Charles Dickens novel "The Pickwick Papers" published shortly before the stone had first been found. The mystery hoaxer had slipped his phony artifact in with the other relics the night that they were discovered and fooled the scientific experts for nearly a century.

3)The Piltdown Man Hoax is an event that proved conclusively that the scientific community is not only ready and willing but able to pull off an elaborate hoax which would be accepted as "FACT" by an unsuspecting society. In February of 1912 Arthur Smith Woodward of the Geology Dept. of the British Museum recieved a letter from Charles Dawson; a solicitor and amateur archaeologist who claimed that he'd discovered certain bones and bone fragments at Piltdown Common in Sussex, England. That June Woodward joined Dawson at Piltdown where a fossil of a lower jaw bone was supposedly found thats color matched skull fragments found earlier. The "Geological Evidence" pointed to a creature that lived 500,000 years ago, while the worn molars in the jawbone suggested human origins because of the different eating habits of man and ape. From the fragments Woodward reconstructed a full skull which he then dubbed 'Eoanthropus Dawsoni'; Dawson's Dawn Man : "The Missing Link". It was presented at the annual Geology meeting in December of 1912. Anatomist Arthur Keith believed in The Piltdown Man, and even felt that its age predated the earliest known human. Keith found that the jaws missing canine teeth presented a difficulty in proving this though. Coincidently, one of the missing canine teeth was soon found by Pierre Teilhard DeChardin who'd supposedly worked at the Piltdown site with Dawson. The two men claimed to have found even more skull fragments and molars in Sheffield Park, near Piltdown in 1915. Dawson died the following year. In 1917, "Piltdown 2" was unveiled by Woodward who had reconstructed the most recently "found" fragments into another complete skull. To many this second reconstruction was proof that Dawson's "Missing Link" was genuine, in short, a scientific "FACT. For over thirty years The Piltdown Man was treated and taught as "FACT"." Several unusual events occured which casted doubt upon the entire enterprise. Dr. Kenneth Oakley of the British Museum discovered that the Piltdown skull fragments dated differently than animal bones found at the same site using a test that measures fluorine content. Anthropologist Joseph Weiner found that the actual earth at the Piltdown site was of a type that could not produce fossils. Then it was discovered that the molars had been filed down to look human. And finally, tests indicated that the jawbone was that of a modern orangutan and that the fossils had been treated with potassium dichromate to artificially age them. On November 21st, 1953 the world was informed that The Piltdown Man was an elaborate hoax.

4) Dr. Jay Levy, the Director of the Institute of Parapsychology in Durham, North Carolina manipulated the data he'd gathered during experiments designed to prove animal E.S.P. Dr. Levy, in his admission of guilt said that he'd fudged the results in order to get better results and to keep interest in the field alive.

I trust that that's enough for now to indicate that neither SCIENCE, nor SCIENTISTS are perfect. So perhaps before sweeping generalizations are made on either side of the fence, a bit of humble pie should be consumed in order to make us realize that we are all mortal, and therfore imperfect.

Just one more thing before I go. I would hope that you'd admit aquatus the impossibility of "proving" a negative; I.E. providing an example of a "known mistake that is still being upheld by scientists". Although I do believe that these mistakes have occured and continue to occur even to the point of data being purposely altered to conform to the theory, I would hope that you'd be honest enough to admit the sheer, unadulterated, impossibility of proving how something that those who believe certain data to be representative of "FACTS" would be convinced, that those "FACTS" are in error, until "EXPERTS" in that field say so for themselves, which goes beyond unlikely in many instances. Can you admit this?

Well wishes and prayers to all

[aquatus1]

About the "Easter Challenge" aquatus, yes I have heard of it and look forward to meeting it as soon as I've got the time to complete the narratives into one singular cohesive whole utilizing the parameters stated and making it easy (Or at least as easy as possible) to understand.

Excellent then. No need to dumb it down or even a narrative format. All I'm looking for is a non-conflicting timeline and events as they occured, including personel attending.

And now, a few not so proud moments in science to consider......

Heh, heh, heh...

You seem willing to equate hoaxes and mistakes. I hardly consider this a fair tactic, but very well:

1776; England: A certain Mrs. Mary Toft convinced a group of "scientific" men that she had given birth to rabbits.

Yes indeed, Mary Toft did convince doctors that she was birthing rabbits. How could anybody believe this? Quite simply, because it had a scientific theory backing it up. This was the theory of psychosomatic pregnancy (different from today's affliction by the same name). This theory stated that a mother's feelings and actions during pregnancy affected the child. If the mother drank red wine, the child could be born with a large red birthmark. If the mother was surly and defiant, she might birth a stone. And, if the mother became obsessed with rabbits, she might well give birth to bunnies.

The problem here is that objectivism wasn't the force that it is today. Tests were done. It was noted that the umbilical cord was not present on the rabbits. It was noted that the lungs floated in water, indicating the creatures had been breating prior to death. It was noted that the rabbits were skinned. And it was noted that the rabbits were all cut up into smaller parts. There were immediate doubts, but they went unheard because no less than King's Royal Surgeon himself was claiming the hoax a reality. It did not last however. Other scientists (actual researchers, not just doctors; do not confuse the two) rapidly pointed out the impossibilities and incongruencies of the story. That Mary Toft changed her story from rabbit obsession to rape by a six foot tall bunny didn't help her credibility. She was charge with fraud, convicted, and both she and many of the doctors who had endorsed her claimed suffered an deadly blow to their reputations, from which they never recovered.

In an era were scientific methodology was not yet standardized, we had this magnificent tale appear. We tend to forget that 228 years ago, medical science was not what it is today, and what is glaringly obvious to us was new territory for the researcher of yesteryear. So, how long did this hoax last? How long did "Scientists" claim that a known mistake was a fact?

14 days after the story, she was under investigation. Seven days later, she was charged with Fraud. Not bad for science 228 years in the past.

The Rabbit Woman News Clippings

Bill Stump's Stone, October 16,1838

I would ask for a reference for this, because I am unable to find one.

I am, of course, familiar with Bill Stump's Stone at the Nine Ladies site in Stanton Moor, England, but that has never been cosidered to be anything more than a case of vandalism. Truthfully, what you described was almost an identical account of the story in Dicken's Pickwick Papers. Bill Stump was name that Mr. Pickwick was unable to read on the stone. The whole book was a satire about scientists who made conclusions prior to doing proper scientific research. I suspect that whomever you heard this story got the fictional account mixed up with the actual account.

Nine Ladies Circle

Bill Stump's Stone, "The Pickwick Papers"

I have to leave, but be assured that I will respond to the rest of your post at a later time, particularly your final paragraph.

[earthygirl04]

You know it has been said," There are two things you never discuss, religion and politics, because all you'll start is an arguement." But I'm gonna put my 2 cents in, because I feel I should. I believe in God. You want proof, read the "BIBLE". These are just a few of my favorite scriptures:

John 1:1-3

In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the begining with God.

All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.

John 20:29

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe.

John 20:31

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1 John 5:11

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Yes, I know there has been a Bible "proof" discusion before. My point is, how can you say there is no God? All things are created by something, right? So where did you come from? Where did we all come from in the begining? I don't believe we came from monkeys, that's not even in the Bible.

I know, I know,......you are asking, "Ok, so where did God come from?"

John 1:1

In the begining was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

God is God. He has always been..... and he will always be.......

Oh, by the way, the Bible says, "Only a fool in his heart shall say there is no God."

Edited July 25, 2004 by earthygirl04

[Xenojjin]

I too became an atheist just last week after a decade long stint as an agnostic. I am simply too much a scientist to be comfortable in having faith without corroborating evidence.

How does becoming an athiest when your already agnostic make you more scientific ? It doesnt .

Actually , I would say it makes you less rational then before .

[Fluffybunny]

These are just a few of my favorite scriptures:

Here are a few of my favorite scriptures:

Levi 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deut 22:5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

I Corinthians 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Dt.4:16-18

"Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the simultude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth."

Ex.20:5 , Dt.5:9

"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

2 Thes 1:7

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

I think you are right earthygirl...there's proof enough there for me...

[earthygirl04]

How does becoming an athiest when your already agnostic make you more scientific ? It doesnt .

Actually , I would say it makes you less rational then before

Very well said Xenojjin!!!