Biblical matters

Fancy a pint? Join the crai­c and non-rugby topics here.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30219
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BaggyTrousers » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:25 pm

bazzaj wrote:Brilliant Bagster but the basis of some of your argument seems based around time.
There are scientists who will argue that it's simply a made up human concept to make sense of the universe.
Hence if there's no time you wouldn't get bored.
As well you know Jizzer that is utter nonsense, but fair dues for effort. :thumleft: :lol: :lol: :lol: Like my "God Thoughts", it has a remote basis in fact but all rather tenuous.

Have you ever seen a scale model of the Solar System? In the early 16th century, our old mate Copperknickers described the Sun as the centre of the Universe and he posited that the "perfect celestial spheres (the planets) circled it, literally, he thought their orbit was most likely perfect circles.

We may gulder at poor old Copernicus now, but compared to what had gone before, the guy was an "Einstein" but then again, Einstein didn't get things spot on either despite being commonly considered the epitome of genius.

You haven't seen a scale model of the Solar System by the way. One was "built" on a dry lake bed in Nevada in 2015. To scale with the earth represented by a marble, the model stretches to 7 miles, so nobody has seen it, just parts of it. Now that is pretty much a boggler when you realise that we are just an infinitesimally small speck in the grand scheme of things, surely Ould Beardie would have made his pet project somewhat more impressive?
Support the team and coaching staff. Forget the rest,BUT NEVER MOVE ON.

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN

User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30219
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BaggyTrousers » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:29 pm

Neil F wrote:Hugh Ross holds a PhD in astronomy. When it comes to anything other than explaining the alignment and behaviour of celestial bodies, he should be seen as nothing other than an enthusiastic amateur. Kind of like when Dawkins starts talking theology...
Might as well have been astrology for all he's done with it. >EW
Support the team and coaching staff. Forget the rest,BUT NEVER MOVE ON.

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:40 pm

mikerob wrote:A lot of popular scientific writers don't have advanced qualifications on their subject matter but their skill is in translating existing, published research into something more understandable for the lay reader.

However Dr Hugh Ross isn't drawing upon a body of published, peer-reviewed scientific results showing that a god created the universe because those results don't exist.

Bazzaj - rather than citing Dr Hugh Ross, can you point towards any published articles in a reputable scientific journal that puts forward evidence that it was god wot done it?

Science isn't what one individual thinks, its a process where someone who is usually part of a team builds upon the work of large numbers of other individuals and teams, and that process involves critical review of ideas, theories and experimental results.
Mike I actually like reading Hugh Ross and for me he has helped make a lot more sense than anyone on the subject and that's all that counts to my mind.
I couldn't actually give a stuff what qualifications he has btw or where they are from.

I also don't have to prove anything to anyone.
If you feel you have to look for answers in science journals, crack on I'm not stopping you.
If not that's your prerogative..

Good luck either way.

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:46 pm

BaggyTrousers wrote:
bazzaj wrote:Brilliant Bagster but the basis of some of your argument seems based around time.
There are scientists who will argue that it's simply a made up human concept to make sense of the universe.
Hence if there's no time you wouldn't get bored.
As well you know Jizzer that is utter nonsense, but fair dues for effort. :thumleft: :lol: :lol: :lol: Like my "God Thoughts", it has a remote basis in fact but all rather tenuous.

Have you ever seen a scale model of the Solar System? In the early 16th century, our old mate Copperknickers described the Sun as the centre of the Universe and he posited that the "perfect celestial spheres (the planets) circled it, literally, he thought their orbit was most likely perfect circles.

We may gulder at poor old Copernicus now, but compared to what had gone before, the guy was an "Einstein" but then again, Einstein didn't get things spot on either despite being commonly considered the epitome of genius.

You haven't seen a scale model of the Solar System by the way. One was "built" on a dry lake bed in Nevada in 2015. To scale with the earth represented by a marble, the model stretches to 7 miles, so nobody has seen it, just parts of it. Now that is pretty much a boggler when you realise that we are just an infinitesimally small speck in the grand scheme of things, surely Ould Beardie would have made his pet project somewhat more impressive?
Are you not impressed Bagster?
Im reminded of the end of the film men in black, where our universe was just portrayed as a microbe on a monster alien type creature.
Could be anything.

User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30219
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BaggyTrousers » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:02 pm

bazzaj wrote:
Neil F wrote:Hugh Ross holds a PhD in astronomy. When it comes to anything other than explaining the alignment and behaviour of celestial bodies, he should be seen as nothing other than an enthusiastic amateur. Kind of like when Dawkins starts talking theology...
But no one has a PhD in everything.
So long as an opinion holds water and is educated that will do for me.
A scientist will always tend to have a more significant knowledge of most scientific matters than someone with a wiki based amateur knowledge such as myself.
Ross's last scientific effort, co-authoring a paper written at Caltech, came in 1977, the guy is not a scientist, let's see if we can agree on that, he has pursued and achieved a qualification, no more than that is the reality.

Just for you Jizzer I have found a critique of your new hero, the guy even quotes sources including Ross's own CV, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm

I have found so many people lining up to critique Ross and an almost universal theme is that he claims his scientific approach proves all manner of things but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back up his assertions and that his use of science as a proving tool is about as unscientific as you can get.

Just thought you might enjoy a little light reading. >EW
Support the team and coaching staff. Forget the rest,BUT NEVER MOVE ON.

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:00 pm

BaggyTrousers wrote:
bazzaj wrote:
Neil F wrote:Hugh Ross holds a PhD in astronomy. When it comes to anything other than explaining the alignment and behaviour of celestial bodies, he should be seen as nothing other than an enthusiastic amateur. Kind of like when Dawkins starts talking theology...
But no one has a PhD in everything.
So long as an opinion holds water and is educated that will do for me.
A scientist will always tend to have a more significant knowledge of most scientific matters than someone with a wiki based amateur knowledge such as myself.
Ross's last scientific effort, co-authoring a paper written at Caltech, came in 1977, the guy is not a scientist, let's see if we can agree on that, he has pursued and achieved a qualification, no more than that is the reality.

Just for you Jizzer I have found a critique of your new hero, the guy even quotes sources including Ross's own CV, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm

I have found so many people lining up to critique Ross and an almost universal theme is that he claims his scientific approach proves all manner of things but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back up his assertions and that his use of science as a proving tool is about as unscientific as you can get.

Just thought you might enjoy a little light reading. >EW
Let's be clear Bagster he is not a hero of mine he's a guy who I like to read and makes sense of a lot of stuff particularly surrounding the creation.
I will readily say there are things concerning Noahs Ark for example I would struggle to agree with him about.
I'm not about to go all Charles Manson about the man by any stretch.

Heroes of mine had a tendency to wear cotton rugby shirts for the record.
However I really appreciate the link and will read it in detail.

I have seen people before similarly debunk theories but I don't really give them total credence as Ross has no right of reply as I'm sure someone could equally debunk the debunker in the same way.
I have seen him debate others however and he more than holds his own with his theories.

Thanks again pal and I'll get back to you if I can make enough sense of it.

User avatar
Neil F
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4045
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Berlin

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Neil F » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:30 am

bazzaj wrote:But if by that logic we can't discuss the existence of God as we need to have a PhD in religious studies to do so, Neil.
If you want to discredit someone's knowledge these people armed with their knowledge should help debunk what the person is saying by formulating a counter argument, be it Ross or Hawkins.or whoever.
Don't just sit back in the stands and tut.
Not at all, Bazz; I'd say the first statement is taking what I have said to an illogical extreme. There is a difference between what we're doing, which is talking about our own beliefs, and what Ross is doing, which is attempting to influence the beliefs of others. Especially when one attempts to do so via argument by authority, as Ross does, it is a worthy critique to point out that the person really doesn't have the authority to make that argument in the first place.

Plenty of scientists in relevant fields have formed meaningful critiques of Ross. I don't work in that field and I am not qualified to formulate a counter-argument that is not my own opinion. I'm happy to assure you, though, that I do plenty of myth busting in my own field!

User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 17333
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BR » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:32 am

big mervyn wrote:
BR wrote:
bazzaj wrote:
BR wrote:
bazzaj wrote:As a computer person or just a person does dna coding impress or dare I say it, amaze you?
As a person, I find DNA (the chemistry and even the knowledge that we are obtaining about it) to be very impressive. But as the first clause of that sentence indicates, I am not an objective observer. On a cosmic scale, who knows.
You are definitely a take two glasses to bed with you kind of guy Br.
Love the dna chat but sense I am about to drown in it
Is that a good thing?
I saw a video once where a girl nearly drowned in DNA.
I nearly drowned in NBA one night.
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk

User avatar
mid ulster maestro
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:32 pm
Location: The Sticks

Re: Biblical matters

Post by mid ulster maestro » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:05 am

As usual, cruising through Youtube and came across this:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpIwUJFhJ8. Feck Sadie, I roared!
When the bottom has fallen out of your world.
Take Enos and let the world fall out of your bottom!

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:21 am

bazzaj wrote:I guess that's the first point Dave acknowledge there is one and work backwards from that point.

I mentioned Hugh Ross who did just that through scientific knowledge, then looked to a religion that best fitted his findings that there was a creator and how they went about their business..
The book of Genesis basically mirrored his scientific knowledge whilst the other religions came up massively short, offering nothing.

It would appear then the Bible would have most of the answers.
Ross is incidentally a Creationists worst nightmare as he does not believe some of the literal interpretation of the Bible.
In fact to the extent that some of them question whether they worship the same God.
Baz, indulge me on this one. As far as I can tell your basis for a creator is because you don't believe that life can have just self-generated. That's a bit of mindfcuk! How do you get from, as you stated above, acknowledging there is a creator, without an even greater mindfcuk??
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:58 am

Neil F wrote:
bazzaj wrote:But if by that logic we can't discuss the existence of God as we need to have a PhD in religious studies to do so, Neil.
If you want to discredit someone's knowledge these people armed with their knowledge should help debunk what the person is saying by formulating a counter argument, be it Ross or Hawkins.or whoever.
Don't just sit back in the stands and tut.
Not at all, Bazz; I'd say the first statement is taking what I have said to an illogical extreme. There is a difference between what we're doing, which is talking about our own beliefs, and what Ross is doing, which is attempting to influence the beliefs of others. Especially when one attempts to do so via argument by authority, as Ross does, it is a worthy critique to point out that the person really doesn't have the authority to make that argument in the first place.

Plenty of scientists in relevant fields have formed meaningful critiques of Ross. I don't work in that field and I am not qualified to formulate a counter-argument that is not my own opinion. I'm happy to assure you, though, that I do plenty of myth busting in my own field!
Neil that link Baggy gave me made for very interesting reading as I love all that.
I also love people who do my research for me!

Regarding Mark Perakhs myth busting of Ross a lot of what he says about Ross I agree with regarding Noahs Ark and his knowledge of Hebrew which justifiably has received scrutiny before.
He particularly focuses his attention on Ross's knowledge of thermodynamics most of which went above my head.

Mr Perakh seems to judge Ross's work extensively with the upmost scientific scrutiny.
He is out entirely to debunk him and therefore anything that holds water he will not refer to as it's not clearly in his agenda.
In fact he accuses Ross of doing the same with his agenda.
The obvious exception is when he was in agreememt with Ross in contradicting new creationist theories a common enemy if ever there was one.

We can pretty much assume that the rest of Ross's work cuts the mustard as he doesn't reference it as it's not in his interests to do so.
If anything I was surprised by that as theres a fair bit left unscathed considering Perakh could have written what he wanted as Ross had no right of reply.
Last edited by bazzaj on Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:11 pm

Dave wrote:
bazzaj wrote:I guess that's the first point Dave acknowledge there is one and work backwards from that point.

I mentioned Hugh Ross who did just that through scientific knowledge, then looked to a religion that best fitted his findings that there was a creator and how they went about their business..
The book of Genesis basically mirrored his scientific knowledge whilst the other religions came up massively short, offering nothing.

It would appear then the Bible would have most of the answers.
Ross is incidentally a Creationists worst nightmare as he does not believe some of the literal interpretation of the Bible.
In fact to the extent that some of them question whether they worship the same God.
Baz, indulge me on this one. As far as I can tell your basis for a creator is because you don't believe that life can have just self-generated. That's a bit of mindfcuk! How do you get from, as you stated above, acknowledging there is a creator, without an even greater mindfcuk??
Again I see it all as a mind feck Dave
I just find one less logical than another.
If I saw a magic act where a rabbit was produced seemingly from nothing the least likely explanation for it is that it came from nothing and just happened.
I would tather think the magician had something to do with it regardless if I could see him on stage or not and even if I couldn't work out how he did it.

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:35 pm

bazzaj wrote: Again I see it all as a mind feck Dave
I just find one less logical than another.
If I saw a magic act where a rabbit was produced seemingly from nothing the least likely explanation for it is that it came from nothing and just happened.
I would tather think the magician had something to do with it regardless if I could see him on stage or not and even if I couldn't work out how he did it.
To me a creator is completely illogical. It defies anything that is known about the physical universe. I can make better sense of an evolutionary theory/natural selection process by understanding how the mechanics might work. I respect your views and your honesty in this discussion.

I see the universe as having endless possibilities. The universe is so big there are literally infinite possibilities. A planet teeming with life and sentient beings with human consciousness is simply one of those possibilities. The odds for finding a planet with the exact conditions for life would be astronomical but logically it must exist at some point in space and time. The fact we are part of it means we have won the greatest lottery in the universe.

That's briefly how I get my head around such things.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

User avatar
pwrmoore
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11842
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:51 am
Location: East Belfast

Re: Biblical matters

Post by pwrmoore » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:04 pm

Dave wrote:
To me a creator is completely illogical. It defies anything that is known about the physical universe. I can make better sense of an evolutionary theory/natural selection process by understanding how the mechanics might work. I respect your views and your honesty in this discussion.

I see the universe as having endless possibilities. The universe is so big there are literally infinite possibilities. A planet teeming with life and sentient beings with human consciousness is simply one of those possibilities. The odds for finding a planet with the exact conditions for life would be astronomical but logically it must exist at some point in space and time. The fact we are part of it means we have won the greatest lottery in the universe.

That's briefly how I get my head around such things.
+1 >you_rock (though I'd have used infinitessimal instead of astronomical )
Paul.

C'mon Ulsterrrrrrrrr! :red:

bazzaj

Re: Biblical matters

Post by bazzaj » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:14 pm

pwrmoore wrote:
Dave wrote:
To me a creator is completely illogical. It defies anything that is known about the physical universe. I can make better sense of an evolutionary theory/natural selection process by understanding how the mechanics might work. I respect your views and your honesty in this discussion.

I see the universe as having endless possibilities. The universe is so big there are literally infinite possibilities. A planet teeming with life and sentient beings with human consciousness is simply one of those possibilities. The odds for finding a planet with the exact conditions for life would be astronomical but logically it must exist at some point in space and time. The fact we are part of it means we have won the greatest lottery in the universe.

That's briefly how I get my head around such things.
+1 >you_rock (though I'd have used infinitessimal instead of astronomical )
Can't argue with much of that Dave except how can you accept the universe has endless possibilities when you deny the possibility of a creator?

Post Reply