The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That? (page 6)

whereami

whereami, I knew I had seen that pic, just couldn't find it. great picture, consider credit given :)

No worries bud. Just busting your chops.

SweetBabyCheezits

Sizemik: Science by definition is a process . . . normally, the result of scientific process goes through scrutiny, criticism, concensus and finally accetptance . . . even at that point many scientist continue with further investigation to deepen understanding.

The origins of the world based on a religious or biblical viewpoint is just men peering at words and deciding what they mean . . . the arguments over that never change . . . or stop.

Excellent post, Mr. Smith.

Twitch

HEY! Thats uncalled for! Shelby put's up with lot of crap off some of you...She makes a defense and shes a b*tch??? You lot are allowed to defend yourselves and what you believe...Why can't Shelby???

Who is defending what exactly in your opinion regarding this thread and the one who started it?

Takes two to tango and she isn't above dishing a bit out herself and in as facetious a manner as anyone who's engaged her, then plays the victim as she has to "defend" herself against those meanie athiests and their ilk who call her on her biased assertions and thinly disguised attempts at righteous indignation. And makes a point of playing the part for all to see.

Do you "see"? No, I know you don't... as hypocrites rarely "see" their hypocrisy. But that's okay. I'm sure others DO see... and that's what really counts for me.

Well as I see it, she started the thread specificially to address supposed "hypocritical" believers of science and reason, was dishonest about her real intentions, made assertions dressed up as fact, was called on it, denied and dismissed the points made, called out non-theists as "religious" to address her assertions, calls established fact as "fiction", evaded and played the "in no mood for you" card when she got owned and subsequently disappeared.

Anyway regardless there no need for name calling!

I believe Shelby started with the name games, technically. This can be proven beyond a measure of doubt, lol. But I agree with you on principle.

One can learn as much if not more from being wrong and admitting it. I know I've apologized on her threads when I've made a mistake. Why hasn't she? And she is wrong on this one.

If yer gonna stick your neck out, talk trash and call people out, assume that someone will take you up on it, lol. I usually pass her threads by for the most part as it really never changes but I had to answer on this one,..;)

But at the end of the day, eh whatever. Good mental exercise at the least.

tec

I think the point of this thread... or at least what I understand of it... is this:

Why is new light (new understanding) in Science considered progress. But new light (new understanding) in spiritual matters is considered 'justification' or 'delusion' or 'covering up for the past'?

If it is accepted in one field, then why is it not accepted in the other as well?

This isn't a 'which is right: science or faith/spirituality?' . Science deals with what is seen, at this point in time at least. Spirituality (faith) deals with what is unseen... such as the "heart" for example, which is not the organ.

We can believe that science is limiting, or that faith is delusional. That is our choice. But new light (new understanding) occurs in both, and if it discredits one, then it should discredit the other as well. The same time, if it is allowed in one as progress, then it should be allowed in the other as progress as well.

Has it been abused by some religions? Yes. As has what constitutes love, but we don't stop loving because its definition has been abused.

Tammy

J. Hofer

"evidence" is the key word

FollowedMyHeart

I think there is a key difference between "new light" in religion and "new light" in science.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS: "New light" in science emerges from man's research into subjects that he is learning about. Being human, he can only know what he has observed. Known dots are connected by unknown hypothesis. As his learning increases the unknown hypothesis may (and often do) change due to this "new light."

Whereas "new light" in religion refers to new understanding of Bible (for sake of argument) "truths". The understanding of the Bible is claimed to be from God. God is all-knowing, it is His book after all. He should know from the beginning what he meant.

Issue is taken with religious "new light" because it is supposed to have come from God. Science makes no such claim.

Hence, what's good for the goose in NOT good for the gander as truths/facts from man cannot be considered on the same plane as truths/facts from God.

tec

Hence, what's good for the goose in NOT good for the gander as truths/facts from man cannot be considered on the same plane as truths/facts from God.

Truth/facts FROM God, no. But our understanding of truth from God... yes.

Tammy

SweetBabyCheezits

I share FMH's perspective.

With faith, the mere fact that a holy book can be (and is) misunderstood by a sincere person who is seeking truth tells me it cannot be from an omniscient source that is also the epitome of love and justice.

If I find a textbook authored or even endorsed by John Q. Scientist and it has demonstrably false data in it, I question John's knowledge and authority on the matter.

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of the supreme intelligence in the universe. I hold it to a higher standard than even John Q. Scientist.

tec

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of the supreme intelligence in the universe.

Does it?

Tammy

SweetBabyCheezits

It does.

The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

Share this