The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

Chris L Peterson wrote:
The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.

Quite right. Science and faith can be said to be opposites. Faith
accepts without evidence. Science only accepts on the basis of evidence.

The Bible and Evolution are like Hockey and Calzone. They really don't
have anything to do with one another.

I've come to believe that Creationism isn't bad science after all. What
it really is, is bad religion. Just as with the Catholic Church and
Galileo. That wasn't really about science, and neither is Creationism
(or whatever they are calling it this week).

The Bible may have great spiritual value to a great number of people,
but it should be obvious that as a science text it is strikingly
lacking. When you have to dig for the true meaning, interpret, and
reinterpret, then that alone should be an indication to any rational
person that you are looking for something that may not be there. Not to
mention the hypocrisy of forcing a literal interpretation on only those
parts of the Old Testament that fit your own world view. God help us if
we accepted everything in it literally!

A rational person is also rather aware of how easy it is to convince
oneself of something, and that's why we need science. At it's most
basic science is simply a methodology that recognizes human limitations
and helps us overcome them--by keeping us intellectually honest, by
protecting us against fooling ourselves. But first we have to recognize
those limitations. Every lunatic and nutter on the internet is the same
in this way--they fail to recognize their own limitations. They
underestimate how easy it is for a human being to believe anything as
long as they wish it and in so doing open themselves up to their own
delusional reality. It is true hubris.

I claim that science is one of the most successful endeavors human
beings have ever set upon. We need look no further than the technology
that surrounds us for the evidence that science is extraordinarily
successful. What technology has ever been developed based on reading
the Bible? If one claims this is an unfair argument, then Hallelujah!
That's exactly my point. The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with
science. It is not a physical description of the workings of the
Universe. There is no need to choose between science (evolution) and
religion. I implore all Christians to stand up against the foolishness
of Biblical Creationism. It is not blasphemy to question the
fundamentalists and their nonsense any more than it was for Galileo to
do so.


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

On Aug 3, 4:22*am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:11:07 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:

I am a Christian who just happens to post in
sci.astro.amateur and the responses you are
receiving are from particpants of that group,
they actually have distinct set of beliefs which
can be isolated and studied and generally
their beliefs come under a system that really
only took off in the late 17th century via Newton,
this system is the empirical cult and it promotes
the so-called 'scientific method'.

Actually, Newton didn't promote what these people
are saying. *But I thank you for making the effort
to try and peacefully clear this matter up. *You are
very kind for doing so.


Technically,Newton's approach to astronomical methods and insights
would be hilarious if it were not that they became dominant ,he
basically jumped to a conclusion between the behavior of objects on
the Earth and applied them to planetary motions.The idea that you do
experiments with handheld objects and then apply them to solar system
structure is quite a leap but that is the basis of the so-called
'scientific method' the attempt to link the laboratory to solar system
or Universal structure.


I did not intentionally post into your group. *I simply
responded to a message that I saw, but again, thanks.

In all respects,the fault does not exist with the empiricists
who are going to believe whatever they wish irrespective
of what is brought before them to demonstrate where
they take a wrong turn

Really? *So tell us... *Who is to blame for them deciding
to believe whatever they want to, despite the facts and
then proclaiming it to be "science"?


Blame ?,no, I do not go down the path of identifying people to
blame,what I would look for are people who have the ability to
identify honest mistakes or intentional fudging,deal with these
matters and move on to more productive pastures,at least in
astronomical affairs.In this era which lacks a credible central
authority in astronomical matters the only option is to go through
places like the usenet where topics of technical or historical
significance can be dealt openly and however rough the usenet has
become,it has now halted the dumping of unbridled speculative junk
into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy


Gee, I guess it's the fault of the listeners who think that
scientists are supposed to be honest???


Nobody has to buy into the idea of scientists on one side and people
of faith on the other ,my investigations into terrestrial /celestial
phenomena are a facet of my faith and if others wish to create an
artificial difference between science/religion then it can only be for
poor political or ideological ends.I have been in the sci.forums long
enough to know that it is more a question of ability and applied
effort rather than whether scientists are honest or not
(again,restricting it to astronomy) and even though I have said that I
have a God-given talent for astronomy,I have more regard for people
who make the effort to explore the technical and historical arguments
than any natural ability. It is up to the listener to discover what
their astronomical heritage is and then compare it with what is
currently believed ,however, even with modern imaging at their
disposal to make the technical aguments easy to understand, it seems
few are willing to do just that.If you doubt what I say then perhaps
the words of Copernicus will suffice -


"For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the
astronomical traditions concerning the derivation of the motions of
the universe's spheres. I began to be annoyed that the movements of
the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most
systematic Artisan of all, were not understood with greater certainty
by the philosophers, who otherwise examined so precisely the most
insignificant trifles of this world. For this reason I undertook the
task of rereading the works of all the philosophers which I could
obtain to learn whether anyone had ever proposed other motions of the
universe's spheres than those expounded by the teachers of astronomy
in the schools. And in fact first I found in Cicero that Hicetas
supposed the earth to move. Later I also discovered in Plutarch that
certain others were of this opinion. I have decided to set his words
down here, so that they may be available to everybody:" Copernicus


the fault is with those who do not take the time to look
at what our ancestors thought as they looked into the
celestial arena.

That's a load of crap! *You have just said that it's okay
for these idiots to lie and it's the fault of the people
for actually believing that they did the science that
they're paid to do and claim that they do!


They do not consider themselves to be lying and no amount of effort
can sway them from their course and they most certainly think
themselves to be benefactors to mankind (again,astronomy) even though
their ideas range from childish to outrageous.Galileo had something to
say to this end -

"In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men,
reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their
minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it
out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as
they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how
simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and
applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it,
however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with
hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside themselves with
passion, some of them would not be backward even about scheming to
suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some experience of
this myself."

Galileo, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632


Get a grip, son!


I think you are perfectly happy playing the role of god defender
without making the effort to actually appreciate what our ancestors
left us and how it all jumped the tracks when empiricism hijacked the
astronomical methods and principles known to astronomers such as
Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo .The pseudo-authoritative empiricist
exploits the laziness to the extent that they can all turn Christians
into creationists when they themselves are basically astrologers.

Get a grip indeed !,how much effort did you give to those images I
posted of the observd motions of Jupiter and Saturn -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

Here are the words of a man who made the effort to understand the
reasoning of Copernicus in the matter of those observed motion ( even
without the benefit of modern imaging) -

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and
Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent
than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that
the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its
motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends
more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose
circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and
retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that
really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is
acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . . .

You see, gentlemen, with what ease and simplicity the annual motion
-- if made by the Earth -- lends itself to supplying reasons for the
apparent anomalies which are observed in the movements of the five
planets. . . . It removes them all and reduces these movements to
equable and regular motions; and it was Nicholas Copernicus who first
clarified for us the reasons for this marvelous effect." 1632,
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

There is pure enjoyment in these texts whereas now the only pleasure
is ignoring them or watching them mangled.Those who have a poor
judgement of Christian faith can rest easy that no effort will be
given to counter their notions and come to understand just how small
the audience for productive astronomy has become.


--

When Christianity becomes religion it leaves the heart hungry.

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

On Aug 3, 9:12*am, Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.

Quite right. *Science and faith can be said to be opposites. *Faith
accepts without evidence. *Science only accepts on the basis of evidence.


People who have led a more interesting or expansive existence have
often found some of the outwardly darker theological Judaeo-Christian
works to have more significance than others.Although the magnificent
Book Of Genesis has greater ties to Christian intutive faith than
others it has proven problematic for those who cannot go beyond the
surface narrative and try to read it like a newspaper account of
creation.

The resounding affirmation of the Book Of Job may be a better place to
begin for those who venture into our ancestors approach to the
questions which always make themselves felt whether a person chooses
to ignore them or not,probably because it is a self-contained work
that fits neatly in with Judaeo-Christian standards helps to soften
the edges for those who are not Christian yet see glimpses of a
driving force which many accomplished minds through history accepted
and loved.

Although the introduction of the Book Of Job by Stephen Mitchell is
more inclined to your end of the spectrum than mine that may not be
such a bad thing if you have not put these things in context before
as a person who wishes to expand their perspective of nature or
religion -

http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/...Excerpt02.html

How incredible the experience to look at rocks,trees and the stars
differently,not as a collection of scattered facts but as an amazing
opportunity to gaze on each as a facet of the whole.



















The Bible and Evolution are like Hockey and Calzone. *They really don't
have anything to do with one another.

I've come to believe that Creationism isn't bad science after all. *What
it really is, is bad religion. *Just as with the Catholic Church and
Galileo. *That wasn't really about science, and neither is Creationism
(or whatever they are calling it this week).

The Bible may have great spiritual value to a great number of people,
but it should be obvious that as a science text it is strikingly
lacking. *When you have to dig for the true meaning, interpret, and
reinterpret, then that alone should be an indication to any rational
person that you are looking for something that may not be there. *Not to
mention the hypocrisy of forcing a literal interpretation on only those
parts of the Old Testament that fit your own world view. *God help us if
we accepted everything in it literally!

A rational person is also rather aware of how easy it is to convince
oneself of something, and that's why we need science. *At it's most
basic science is simply a methodology that recognizes human limitations
and helps us overcome them--by keeping us intellectually honest, by
protecting us against fooling ourselves. *But first we have to recognize
those limitations. *Every lunatic and nutter on the internet is the same
in this way--they fail to recognize their own limitations. *They
underestimate how easy it is for a human being to believe anything as
long as they wish it and in so doing open themselves up to their own
delusional reality. *It is true hubris.

I claim that science is one of the most successful endeavors human
beings have ever set upon. *We need look no further than the technology
that surrounds us for the evidence that science is extraordinarily
successful. *What technology has ever been developed based on reading
the Bible? *If one claims this is an unfair argument, then Hallelujah!
That's exactly my point. *The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with
science. *It is not a physical description of the workings of the
Universe. *There is no need to choose between science (evolution) and
religion. *I implore all Christians to stand up against the foolishness
of Biblical Creationism. *It is not blasphemy to question the
fundamentalists and their nonsense any more than it was for Galileo to
do so.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: *http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing:http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: * *http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:06:51 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

Again we are back to a little. A little means there WAS.

In the context of this discussion, no. I am unaware on _any_ science to
be found in either the OT or NT (which where this thread started).

Which is a back step from what you said earlier.

But there is some that you may want to checkout here.
http://bibleprobe.com/pi.htm

By
that, I mean that there doesn't seem to be any description of knowledge
gained by any sort of scientific method.

Which I argue is not necessary although highly desirable.

Similarly, there is no evidence
of any cosmological knowledge deeper than that which can be observed
with the senses alone.

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

For example Tycho de Brahe and Johannes Kepler did science and they only
used their senses. Galileo's mechanics were done without a clock.


etc

Of course, that is why most of the cosmological
knowledge to be found there is wrong.

Indeed.


_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

In article , ananias917
says...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:11:31 +1000, SolomonW
spake thusly:


Of course. And the knowledge obtained by science can be wrong as well,

A fundamental rule of logic is that a truth cannot give a false but a
false can give a truth.

If knowledge is obtained by science and it is wrong. Then it means
logically that science is wrong. QED

Exactly my point! You put it quite well.



Thank you!

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:11:31 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

A fundamental rule of logic is that a truth cannot give a false but a
false can give a truth.

If knowledge is obtained by science and it is wrong. Then it means
logically that science is wrong. QED

That statement simply means you fail to understand (1) logic,

It is 101 logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table

Look up
Logical conjunction
A truth and truth = truth.


(2)
science, or both.

You can't compare science to knowledge, as in the logical construction
"science implies knowledge". They are different categories of things.
Knowledge is a collection of facts (which may or may not be true);


So for science to start at some point there must have been knowledge. At
that point you are saying mankind had no science and knowledge. Why
could the people at the time consider that knowledge to be science?

science is a process for arriving at facts. The scientific process can
be perfect, and still produce incorrect results. The observations may be
bad, the logic used in deriving the theory may be wrong, the
interpretation of observations or results may be wrong. None of those
failures of input to the process means the process itself is faulty.

So science can be wrong! So you cannot rule out the term "Biblical
science" because it is often wrong.


_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

In article ,
says...
Chris L Peterson wrote:
The idea that the bible and evolution are the opposite of each other is
simply bizarre.

Quite right. Science and faith can be said to be opposites. Faith
accepts without evidence.

Yet few people in faith would accept something that their senses shows
does not happen.


Science only accepts on the basis of evidence.


There is little evidence for a black hole. Yet most scientist believe
it.

snip

What technology has ever been developed based on reading
the Bible?

Actually there is some. I know a wheel structure used by NASA was
developed from an engineers reading of a biblical quote.

snip

There is no need to choose between science (evolution) and
religion. I implore all Christians to stand up against the foolishness
of Biblical Creationism.

Hear hear.

In article 20b1f65b-77c0-4cf2-a65d-73044519a879
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says...
On Aug 3, 4:22*am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:11:07 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:

I am a Christian who just happens to post in
sci.astro.amateur and the responses you are
receiving are from particpants of that group,
they actually have distinct set of beliefs which
can be isolated and studied and generally
their beliefs come under a system that really
only took off in the late 17th century via Newton,
this system is the empirical cult and it promotes
the so-called 'scientific method'.

Actually, Newton didn't promote what these people
are saying. *But I thank you for making the effort
to try and peacefully clear this matter up. *You are
very kind for doing so.


Technically,Newton's approach to astronomical methods and insights
would be hilarious if it were not that they became dominant ,he
basically jumped to a conclusion between the behavior of objects on
the Earth and applied them to planetary motions.The idea that you do
experiments with handheld objects and then apply them to solar system
structure is quite a leap but that is the basis of the so-called
'scientific method' the attempt to link the laboratory to solar system
or Universal structure.


The reason they did it was faith that it was the same. Sometimes they
are wrong too. For example in the early 1900s people attempted to use
Newtonian physics to explain particles in atoms. They failed and slowly
had to develop quantum mechanics.



I did not intentionally post into your group. *I simply
responded to a message that I saw, but again, thanks.

In all respects,the fault does not exist with the empiricists
who are going to believe whatever they wish irrespective
of what is brought before them to demonstrate where
they take a wrong turn

Really? *So tell us... *Who is to blame for them deciding
to believe whatever they want to, despite the facts and
then proclaiming it to be "science"?


Blame ?,no, I do not go down the path of identifying people to
blame,what I would look for are people who have the ability to
identify honest mistakes or intentional fudging,deal with these
matters and move on to more productive pastures,at least in
astronomical affairs.In this era which lacks a credible central
authority in astronomical matters the only option is to go through
places like the usenet where topics of technical or historical
significance can be dealt openly and however rough the usenet has
become,it has now halted the dumping of unbridled speculative junk
into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy


Obviously the usenet requires some form of moderation.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:54:59 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

There is little evidence for a black hole. Yet most scientist believe
it.

There are many different observations that provide evidence for black
holes. We directly observe gravitational effects and we directly observe
the radiation produced by accreting matter. In addition, well developed
theories which are supported by many other observations (and are
therefore well accepted) require black holes, and those theories predict
just the sort of observations we actually make. Black holes are a
wonderful example of _good_ science.


What technology has ever been developed based on reading
the Bible?

Actually there is some. I know a wheel structure used by NASA was
developed from an engineers reading of a biblical quote.

A reference would be nice. But even so, a description of ancient
technology is not science.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:33:11 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

But there is some that you may want to checkout here.
http://bibleprobe.com/pi.htm

So? No science there. Just an observation (maybe) that a circle's
circumference is about three times its diameter. I'm sure that's been
known for a very long time.


Similarly, there is no evidence
of any cosmological knowledge deeper than that which can be observed
with the senses alone.

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times. That's the point. The first
documented use of a scientific method I'm aware of was by Greeks about
2400 years ago, and that wasn't applied systematically. The method then
seems to disappear for another thousand years, and only becomes
systematically applied from the 1500s on.

For example Tycho de Brahe and Johannes Kepler did science and they only
used their senses. Galileo's mechanics were done without a clock.

Nonsense. Tycho developed precise astronomical measuring instruments and
used them for his observations. Kepler used those same observations.
Galileo did many experiments using instruments. He certainly used clocks
for his work with pendulums.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com