Congratulations To The Tractor Boys . ....
Football1 min ago
How Much Do You Love The Truth?
69 Answers
(John 8:32)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I've been thinking about that phrase, 'The truth shall set you free.'.
I had a neighbour years ago who went to live with a Christian group in Holland. They convinced him of the virtues of the truth and he eventually unburdened himself. That landed him in the dock at a Diplock court when he received a lengthy custodial sentence. The people he'd implicated were acquitted.
I had a neighbour years ago who went to live with a Christian group in Holland. They convinced him of the virtues of the truth and he eventually unburdened himself. That landed him in the dock at a Diplock court when he received a lengthy custodial sentence. The people he'd implicated were acquitted.
// Look... science itself was largely built upon Christianity.//
erm only in America - that is why we have christian things and concepts like algorithm, algebra, azimuth, nadir - to say nothng of alcohol !
[ the interesting question in arab science is not where did it come from or even does it exist - but why did it stop ? - specifically why empiricism ( which worked ) was replaced by mysticism ( which er didnt ) ]
and clanad before you use // Look... science itself was largely built upon Christianity// again can you look up and read something on "the twelfth century renaissance" there was one by the way.
Francis Bacon and so on - they all get burnt....
erm only in America - that is why we have christian things and concepts like algorithm, algebra, azimuth, nadir - to say nothng of alcohol !
[ the interesting question in arab science is not where did it come from or even does it exist - but why did it stop ? - specifically why empiricism ( which worked ) was replaced by mysticism ( which er didnt ) ]
and clanad before you use // Look... science itself was largely built upon Christianity// again can you look up and read something on "the twelfth century renaissance" there was one by the way.
Francis Bacon and so on - they all get burnt....
Thanks PP for picking up on something I should have myself. Science as it exists today has its origins properly in the Arab-Islamic traditions of the later half of the first millennium. Christianity, at the same time, was good for preserving ancient knowledge but never got around to challenging or updating it for well over a thousand years.
"Science as it exists today has its origins properly in the Arab-Islamic traditions of the later half of the first millennium."
Never heard of Thales,Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Aristarchus, Aristotle, Euclid and Archimedes, then?
Mathematics in the form of "Arabic" numerals and the zero came to us from India via Islamic science when Islamic learning was still eclectic and the great universities of Baghdad, Cairo and Cordoba flourished.
One explanation for the decline in science I've heard is the influence of Al-Gazali in the 12th century who asserted as I recall) that all things are sustained by the will of Allah, and therefore search for natural causes is a kind of blasphemy. Will go back and read more about this.
In the last five centuries all forms of learning and enquiry seem to have fled an increasingly insular Islamic world. Just as an example, the great civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Middle East seem never to have raised the least curiosity in the new owners of those territories; their culture and languages would be still unknown had it not been for; the work of Westerners like Petrie, Woolley, Rawlinson and many others in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Never heard of Thales,Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Aristarchus, Aristotle, Euclid and Archimedes, then?
Mathematics in the form of "Arabic" numerals and the zero came to us from India via Islamic science when Islamic learning was still eclectic and the great universities of Baghdad, Cairo and Cordoba flourished.
One explanation for the decline in science I've heard is the influence of Al-Gazali in the 12th century who asserted as I recall) that all things are sustained by the will of Allah, and therefore search for natural causes is a kind of blasphemy. Will go back and read more about this.
In the last five centuries all forms of learning and enquiry seem to have fled an increasingly insular Islamic world. Just as an example, the great civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Middle East seem never to have raised the least curiosity in the new owners of those territories; their culture and languages would be still unknown had it not been for; the work of Westerners like Petrie, Woolley, Rawlinson and many others in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Obviously, naomi, jim360, nor mibn have not had the opportunity to sit in on debates between well qualified scientists when they are discussing (to put it mildly) whether one grouping of fauna or flora is a 'species' or not and how the debate certainly centers on the origins, timing and fit of the example. It's far more of a disagreement than our friends enumerated above would have you believe.
At the risk of inciting boredom and/or more beligerence, this exchange ( http://
At the risk of inciting boredom and/or more beligerence, this exchange ( http://
"Obviously, naomi, jim360, nor mibn have not had the opportunity to sit in on debates between well qualified scientists..."
Not in the biology field, to be sure, but I think I can well imagine what it might be like! At least one discussion, such as it is, that I witnessed involved two of the leading experts in the field discussing some technical point about blah-blah who cares, but never quite advancing their counterarguments beyond "Yes it is." "No it isn't!" And so on.
As a non-expert in biology I'm not going to complain if you take what I say with a pinch of salt, but all the same my perspective is that the debate of what constitutes a species should not provide a distraction from the fact that the underlying theory has been accepted by pretty much every scientist for well over a century by now. I fear that those who do use it as such a distraction are, ironically, missing a point that the difficult over defining what makes a species arguably strengthens the case for evolutionary theory, rather than weakening it. After all, what more natural consequence can there be of an idea of life being constantly in flux, ever-changing and adapting to environmental pressures, than that it is very difficult to draw the well-defined lines required to differentiate two species? What point are you trying to make yourself, Clanad, by drawing attention to this debate?
Thanks for the link and I'd hope to read it at some point soon.
Not in the biology field, to be sure, but I think I can well imagine what it might be like! At least one discussion, such as it is, that I witnessed involved two of the leading experts in the field discussing some technical point about blah-blah who cares, but never quite advancing their counterarguments beyond "Yes it is." "No it isn't!" And so on.
As a non-expert in biology I'm not going to complain if you take what I say with a pinch of salt, but all the same my perspective is that the debate of what constitutes a species should not provide a distraction from the fact that the underlying theory has been accepted by pretty much every scientist for well over a century by now. I fear that those who do use it as such a distraction are, ironically, missing a point that the difficult over defining what makes a species arguably strengthens the case for evolutionary theory, rather than weakening it. After all, what more natural consequence can there be of an idea of life being constantly in flux, ever-changing and adapting to environmental pressures, than that it is very difficult to draw the well-defined lines required to differentiate two species? What point are you trying to make yourself, Clanad, by drawing attention to this debate?
Thanks for the link and I'd hope to read it at some point soon.
Keyplus, I watched your video and after all that I still don’t know why he converted to Islam except that he found the bible to be contradictory, the message Christian ministers were promoting to be false, the Koran to have been written in Arabic, and after asking god to guide him he felt a sudden urge to fall flat on his face. As a former “preacher of the bible” it’s very odd that he wasn’t aware that the language of Jesus was Aramaic, and also I find curious is that he says Zakir Abdul, a preacher I’ve listened to quite a bit, possesses “a giant computer brain”. Well, Zakir Abdul certainly knows the Koran by heart – but a “giant computer brain”? No. He gets a lot wrong – as you are aware.
Yusuf Estes encourages his audience to concentrate on five words – ‘surrender’, ‘submission’, ‘obedience’, ‘sincerity’, and ‘peace’, and then goes on to tell them to thank Allah for everything “even if you don’t like it”. Oops ….in a matter of seconds he forgot ‘sincerity’.
Like all Islamic preachers he addresses his adult audience as one would address children – and they lap it up without a second thought. He got them with the ‘surrender’,’ submission’, and ‘obedience’ at least. Three out of five’s not bad.
Yusuf Estes encourages his audience to concentrate on five words – ‘surrender’, ‘submission’, ‘obedience’, ‘sincerity’, and ‘peace’, and then goes on to tell them to thank Allah for everything “even if you don’t like it”. Oops ….in a matter of seconds he forgot ‘sincerity’.
Like all Islamic preachers he addresses his adult audience as one would address children – and they lap it up without a second thought. He got them with the ‘surrender’,’ submission’, and ‘obedience’ at least. Three out of five’s not bad.
Clanad, //It's far more of a disagreement than our friends enumerated above would have you believe.//
I don’t believe any of those ‘enumerated’ have under-estimated the disagreement between scientists but how is their disagreement relevant to this discussion? You seem to be going around the houses somewhat. What point are you trying to make?
I don’t believe any of those ‘enumerated’ have under-estimated the disagreement between scientists but how is their disagreement relevant to this discussion? You seem to be going around the houses somewhat. What point are you trying to make?
Clanad, I'm as bemused as many others on this thread are: what have arguments, even quarrels, among scientists got to do with anything? Time, experimentation and evidence will resolve these disputes; the method is self-correcting.
The differences among believers in the various and usually contradictory religious "truths" are INCAPABLE of resolution. And yet many of you believe that selecting the right one from a thousand unproved, unprovable and highly implausible fairy tales will determine your eternal destiny.
Oh, by the way, your link was a not discussion about the truth of evolution, but about its mechanics.
The differences among believers in the various and usually contradictory religious "truths" are INCAPABLE of resolution. And yet many of you believe that selecting the right one from a thousand unproved, unprovable and highly implausible fairy tales will determine your eternal destiny.
Oh, by the way, your link was a not discussion about the truth of evolution, but about its mechanics.
// this exchange ( http://
very well worth reading
and I agree that neither party says tt evolution is wrong
and both parties agree that things have evolved (! pun intended ) since Darwin's day
if you want more I recommend - The structure of evolutionary theory Stephen J Gould - a thousand page suck - but by Golly you know what the main contenders are teaching nowadays. And it is in the mould of the Nature discussion. Gould feels that punctuated evolution / equilibrium is such a novel take on evolution that it should be given its own name
and that would be um Gould and Nyles theory of Evolution.....
very well worth reading
and I agree that neither party says tt evolution is wrong
and both parties agree that things have evolved (! pun intended ) since Darwin's day
if you want more I recommend - The structure of evolutionary theory Stephen J Gould - a thousand page suck - but by Golly you know what the main contenders are teaching nowadays. And it is in the mould of the Nature discussion. Gould feels that punctuated evolution / equilibrium is such a novel take on evolution that it should be given its own name
and that would be um Gould and Nyles theory of Evolution.....
You know, you don't have to be a research biologist to evaluate the evidence on evolution.
No, too many people merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts.
You’d be amazed at how many people who believe evolution know practically nothing about it.
No, too many people merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts.
You’d be amazed at how many people who believe evolution know practically nothing about it.
goodlife //You know, you don't have to be a research biologist to evaluate the evidence on evolution. //
No but one does need to understand a considerable body of science and how it applies to the Theory of Evolution.
//No, too many people merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts. //
Such is the nature of a religious belief. However Evolution stands up to every test while Biblical accounts are exposed as nonsense by the tiniest amount of objective analysis. It is religion that makes one incapable of objective assessment of the facts and lunges the devotee into a whirlpool of ignorance from which there is sometimes no escape.
//You’d be amazed at how many people who believe evolution know practically nothing about it. //
I'm not amazed at all. Many people don't now much about anything complex and will happily admit it. They accept that learned people have made the effort to fully grasp the science, and accept their judgement. However the science is there for anyone with the inclination to pursue it to any level. I have even studied Relativity and have a working grasp of that science because I was curious.
The ignorance of the masses does not equate to ignorance of theory by those who have taken the time to comprehend a subject.
I look forward to your reply but once again I expect you will disregard my post and simply parrot off something they taught you at church.
No but one does need to understand a considerable body of science and how it applies to the Theory of Evolution.
//No, too many people merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts. //
Such is the nature of a religious belief. However Evolution stands up to every test while Biblical accounts are exposed as nonsense by the tiniest amount of objective analysis. It is religion that makes one incapable of objective assessment of the facts and lunges the devotee into a whirlpool of ignorance from which there is sometimes no escape.
//You’d be amazed at how many people who believe evolution know practically nothing about it. //
I'm not amazed at all. Many people don't now much about anything complex and will happily admit it. They accept that learned people have made the effort to fully grasp the science, and accept their judgement. However the science is there for anyone with the inclination to pursue it to any level. I have even studied Relativity and have a working grasp of that science because I was curious.
The ignorance of the masses does not equate to ignorance of theory by those who have taken the time to comprehend a subject.
I look forward to your reply but once again I expect you will disregard my post and simply parrot off something they taught you at church.
While I'm impressed with the reasonable and reasoned response by jim360, I'm equally mystified that the immovable naomi and often Polonian vestuste fail to se the problem associated with 'disagreement' among scientist, about many things... even the basic concept inherent in the word "species".
The problem is illuminated by Einstein himself... in that he promulgated a 'static universe'... one that had no beginning and no possible ending. This is but one of such scientific 'theories' that came to an end... and in that sense, naomi, vetutste and others are correct that the end to the error was discovered by other scientists for the most part. The falsity of the theory though, was believed by scientists and the general public to be the "truth" for a greater or shorter period of time dpending on which falsified theory we're choosing to discuss.
Lack of agreement on the definition of 'species' (chosen only as one example) promulgates a plethora of often opposing theories on origins and mechanics of progression among those that study such things... to the point that even the basics of evolution are argued, leading the layman to ask "what's the truth", no?
It's lamentable that studies of a 15th century bishop based on incomplete and misunderstood geneaologies in the Old and New Testaments leading him to believe the universe to be only 6,000 years old is still always thrown in the faces of 'Creationists' when similar errors exist in the scientific endeavor.
The problem is illuminated by Einstein himself... in that he promulgated a 'static universe'... one that had no beginning and no possible ending. This is but one of such scientific 'theories' that came to an end... and in that sense, naomi, vetutste and others are correct that the end to the error was discovered by other scientists for the most part. The falsity of the theory though, was believed by scientists and the general public to be the "truth" for a greater or shorter period of time dpending on which falsified theory we're choosing to discuss.
Lack of agreement on the definition of 'species' (chosen only as one example) promulgates a plethora of often opposing theories on origins and mechanics of progression among those that study such things... to the point that even the basics of evolution are argued, leading the layman to ask "what's the truth", no?
It's lamentable that studies of a 15th century bishop based on incomplete and misunderstood geneaologies in the Old and New Testaments leading him to believe the universe to be only 6,000 years old is still always thrown in the faces of 'Creationists' when similar errors exist in the scientific endeavor.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
My Dearest Friend Ducksie - R I P
ChatterBank35 mins ago
Crosswords60 mins ago
