Sign in to follow this  
Rev. Dr. Dean Ray

Religion Versus Science

Recommended Posts

Retconning is junk science, too. It's completely contrary to known laws of space, time, and consumer confidence.

Since you are completely familiar with the known laws of space, time and consumer confidence, you should be ripe to become a corporate executive and get bonuses. :thumbu:

Of course you did say "known." But I would ask, "known" by whom?

namaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature shows us many different adaptations which could not have developed independently.

I certainly agree. Nothing is "independent." It all works TOGETHER because everything exists in interconnectivity. And that includes everything in the physical world made up of earth, air, fire or water. Like Einstien said, "THERE IS NO MATTER. ALL IS ENERGY." And Wilhelm Reich proved that all energy is LIFE energy and has purpose built in. Of course, they arrested him and put him into prison where he died. They did their best to suppress his life's work because his findings didn't fit in with the old paradigm of "dead" earth, air, fire and water. And, worse than that, he DARED to mention the importance of the function of the sexual orgasim -- a complete no no in his day. That was just too much for the uptight.

But anyone who knows anything at all about electromagnetics can look at the construction of an ORGONE BOX and see that it is a CAPACITOR. But, again, you CAN'T PUT A METER ON IT, so get it out of the way.

And I also agree that "Intelligent Design" should NOT be taught by "religionists." It should be taught by scientists -- and there are a growing number of scientists who hold that view and have VERY good evidence for it, although ridiculed and poo pooed by the status quo pop stars and their followers. However, the status quo will only hire those who go along with the status quo program. The alternative to ID is to teach UNintelligent Chance (which we have all already been taught in our dumbed down educational systems) and to me that is very destructive, as the fruit of that is well proven to produce total dysfunction in the society at large.

And that is because it is highly flawed, ignoring THOUGHT, MIND, CONSIOUSNESS, INTELLIGENCE and SPIRIT which are the primary Universal elements of all Creation. Instead, physical MATTER is taught as primary. "Evolution" is taught as a "law of the jungle" affair. So, the result is a blind dog eat dog consumer driven society which ranges from criminal Bankers, who steal trillions without a twinge of conscience, down to store clerks not able to make a living wage.

I don't think we need religious doctrines and dogmas. NOR do we need "sceintific" doctrines and dogmas. Our education should not be a matter of indoctrination but of encouraging Creative Intelligence. That Creative Intelligence is ALREADY there. All we need to do is quit smothering it.

namaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm happy to be of service.

Cartoons can provide good relief for an overtaxed brain, just be careful that you don't fall for the junk science that they too often try to push, like in Dexter's Lab and Spider-Man (radioactive spiders won't give you super powers).

Verisoph, here is my view of the real definition of "junk" science:

Weapons of mass destruction. One could also call it, "TRASH SCIENCE." Actually, it is not "science" at all because it ignores consciousness and thought all together and looks upon Mother Nauture as "dog eat dog."

namaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retconning is junk science, too. It's completely contrary to known laws of space, time, and consumer confidence.

Since you are completely familiar with the known laws of space, time and consumer confidence, you should be ripe to become a corporate executive and get bonuses. :thumbu:

Of course you did say "known." But I would ask, "known" by whom?

:lol: That's too funny!!!!!!!! Really...that's the best laugh I've had in weeks!

You're ready to jump to the defense of anything that someone calls junk science!

We were talking about cartoons and comics, my friend.

Here, this should clear up what is meant by retconning, which I called junk science, and which you took exception to: Retroactive Continuity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nestingwave-

Yes, my friend, Cause and Effect is indeed a Universal Law.

This one line tells me that you lack understanding of what quantum entanglement really is. Quantum entangled pairs completely defy causation. That was the whole point of the Bell inequalities. Here is the wiki on it: Bell Inequalities. (Of course, anyone who edits wikipedia is probably so entrenched in the old 'standard model' that you don't care what they have to say.) In quantum mechanics there is no causation. Thats why Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics, and he and his friends came up with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox which said that their must be some hidden variables in quantum mechanics that we don't know about that restore cause and effect. Then in 1964, Bell published his paper that showed that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had made a fundamental error in assuming all wavefunctions were separable. Bell's theory has been confirmed experimentally hundreds of times: heres one example.

Does this mean that Bell proved that God plays dice with the universe? No, I never said that. I said it proved Einstein wrong. It most certainly did do that.

And then we come to the whole crux of this thread: religion v. science. Here we have a person who has taken a bit of information from science, and used it to influence religion without truly understanding it. Nestingwave, you have this whole philosophy/life view about the universe that is great. Believing we are all interconnected, and that the tiniest bits of the universe contain the whole universe is radical and fun to think about. But using quantum mechanics to justify this world view just doesn't settle well with me. You've taken the science out of context.

I think this is the fundamental problem. People take a bit of science, like entangled systems from quantum mechanics, and without trying to understand that bit of science they use it to explain a whole philosophy or religion. Christianity did the same thing in the dark ages when they used Aristotle's science to prove that Hell was at the center of the earth. It goes the other direction too. People take some science like "Hey, there's a whole heap of evidence that there was a big bang," and they use it to defy religion. "Ha ha, the big bang means there is no God." Or "Hey, there's a whole heap of evidence that species evolved into what they are now over billions of years. Ha ha, evolution means there is no God." It's completely ridiculous.

Religion and science are like oil and water. You can't mix them.

Edited by pmdirac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the NOVA show on-line last night on the court case involving intelligent design in Dover, PA where the school board tried to get some snippets of it put into the curriculum. It was very interesting and went into some of the arguments why ID is not science.

Here is the link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

I always thought ID accepted evolution as the vehicle for variety of life on our planet, but that it was initiated by the Big Kahuna. I never realized it was just a creation myth makeover.

I loved the show. I remembered some of the bacterial flagellum discussions here at ULC.

The shows I watched about the honey bees and lonliest animals were excellent as well. I don't recall if they were NOVA or NATURE though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: That's too funny!!!!!!!! Really...that's the best laugh I've had in weeks!

You're ready to jump to the defense of anything that someone calls junk science!

We were talking about cartoons and comics, my friend.

Here, this should clear up what is meant by retconning, which I called junk science, and which you took exception to: Retroactive Continuity

In retrospect, I see that ALL THINGS have a continuity -- although not always obvious at first blush.

After all -- if it wasn't for the items that the "experts" declare to be "junk" science ... where would we be??

:lol: I am so glad you finally got a good laugh! Very healing indeed. (and yeah that particular well known fact is not junk science at all -- laughter really does heal one's body, mind and soul -- yep).

As history has proven time and time again, verisoph, one man's "junk" science is another man's creative innovation. It is all a matter of perspective -- or else -- the narrowness of ones perspective, having become cognitively constipated.

I think you might even agree in retrospect (though you may not admit it) that it is tunnel vision that makes the "experts" declare that the Wright Brothers will never get off the ground -- or -- that it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for Galileo to see the moons of Mars through his telescope. Neither innovation fit the concept of the hour.

And how is today any different??

The thing about "experts" is that their attitudes never change.

I think that somehow they actually believe that their prestige and careers depend upon their absolutisms. To admit that they might have been wrong would be to ruin their image and reputation as a popular know-it-all. They become so entrenched in their favorite theories and cling to them so tightly, that they refuse to relinquish their grip -- even when they have an elephant of facts in their own living room staring them right in the face.

We have the same folks right here among us today, do we not? Apparently, they keep reincarnating. :wall:

Here are a couple of pieces of genuine "junk" science that were (at one time) considered to be irrefutable facts by the "experts" whom you so admire.

Some even today, when well proven to be wrong, still cling on to the their old dead concepts.

It is amazing to me how alike dogmas are, whether religious or "scientific." Of course, in reality, to make ANYTHING dogmatic in "science" is completely UNscientific. Nevertheless, it is a quite common practice of the well entrenched.

1) Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

2) It is impossible for thoughts to move matter.

"Nothing" and "impossible." The favorite words of many who have become ... shall we say ... ignorance afflicted?

Actually .... "NOTHING" is "IMPOSSIBLE." But also -- "NOTHINGNESS" is "POSSIBLE."

You see, indeed, it is all a matter of ones own perspective. Really.

It's all a great big Zen Koan. So ... work it out. And ... when you finally give up in frustration ... there you are. :Lighten:

(as one Zen student to another you should appreciate that) :bb2:

In this vast Universe .... there is an ORTHOROTATED SURPRISE around every corner -- even in some comic books and cartoons -- where, by the way, JET PLANES were first presented to the public long before anyone had actually seen one. FANTASTIC? "IMPOSSIBLE" according to some.

Surprise, surprise! :clap2:

Well, to tell you the truth, prejudicial attitudes have not really changed that much. And those who would rather someone ELSE did their thinking for them will always believe an "expert" over their own experiences or the experiences of others who make no claims to be "experts."

Anyhow, all it takes to be an "expert" are some credentials and initials in front of your name. VERY impressive, eh? Our present culture runs on advertising. But .... the consumers are slowly being consumed by their own consumption. hmmm .... perhaps there is a better way?

"Horses don't bet on people .... horses have too much sense.

Horses have no remourses,

they pull wagons without recompense.

Oh .... people who wager on horses,

see their castles go up in smoke ....

but ....

horses don't bet on people ...

and that's why they never go broke." (Spike Jones and the City Slickers)

Namaste

Edited by nestingwave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought ID accepted evolution as the vehicle for variety of life on our planet, but that it was initiated by the Big Kahuna. I never realized it was just a creation myth makeover.

ID is creationism - pure, plain, and simple.

You might find this interesting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In retrospect, I see that ALL THINGS have a continuity -- although not always obvious at first blush.

You can argue that retconning is real science until you're blue in the face, I still don't buy it.

Peter Parker was bitten by a spider that was accidentally exposed to radiation, not a spider that was subjected to deliberate genetic modification. You can't change this fact, not even with a short story's worth of randomly boldfaced words of dissent.

Sorry, but there are copies of the original comic still in existence today.

Edited by Verisoph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Francis Bacon wrote/edited the King James Bible, the state of science was bleak; to the point where gravity was just being 'discovered' around the same time period. With learning and general historical knowledge actively being suppressed at the time, one may just wonder if he did in fact toss some smidgens of truth when choosing which creation myths to include in the mix; this assuming he actually had access to any held in high enough regard within masonic protocol.

This of course opens up the can of worms that his Shakespeare plays may have also held some truths, which would be more believable because such documented chronicles would be available to him for publishing...as long as they were presented as 'fiction'.

But considering that he would have access to nothing more than tales that through the ages have degraded to naught but myths and legends dealing with 'creation', a condensed version was the order of the day. At least concerning that which was presented to the public, leaving that which was 'true' for the eyes of the initiated.

Word of mouth and mistranslations have left us with nothing but conjecture, on both a religious and scientific front.

Anyhow, it always seemed to me that the argument and proofs of creationism lead to extraterrestrial or intradimensional beginnings for life on earth, not the hand of 'god'. And evolution may be standard procedure in the wild, but humanity is rising above it through caring for those that are not as 'fit' as the rest, aka anti-biotic discoveries, eye glasses, wheelchairs, and even the computer. So that in itself kind of makes survival of the fittest a moot point within human culture. Perhaps that is in fact the merging of spirituality and science. Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ID is creationism - pure, plain, and simple.

You might find this interesting:

Thanks for the link but I have no problem with such things as flagellums and eyes developing though evolution. The process is quite miraculous.

My head is buzzing for the last few days trying to imagine our world as a type of bio computer. The amazing world I see represented on the laptop I'm writing this response on is nothing more than combinations of 1 and 0's. Our whole physical world may be built upon a similar set of two basic micro-quantum particles.

Science in its study of these various forms of quantum 10001100's are not looking for proof or existence of the manufacturer and programmer. They are busy looking at the components, programs and the power supply.

Even a very inept manufacturer and programmer need not be present for the machine to operate. Though one would hope contact information would be available for help. A most excellent manufacturer and programmer would need not advertise their involvement at all. They created, programmed and designed the system fully competent that it will run eternally without any problems and once the machine leaves the warehouse they have no further involvement with the machines.

Some of my other thoughts concerning this I'm creating a separate topic Seeds of Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can argue that retconning is real science until you're blue in the face, I still don't buy it.

Peter Parker was bitten by a spider that was accidentally exposed to radiation, not a spider that was subjected to deliberate genetic modification. You can't change this fact, not even with a short story's worth of randomly boldfaced words of dissent.

Sorry, but there are copies of the original comic still in existence today.

Uh .... so what?

Namaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh .... so what?

So what? I don't know, you tell me so what.

Greedy Monk and I were discussing the way the story changed about the origin of Spider-Man's powers. This is called retconning. I called retconning junk science, whereupon you got upset about that and launched into a couple of lengthy rants.

And now you're asking me "so what"? Are you having a hard time keeping up with the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the link but I have no problem with such things as flagellums and eyes developing though evolution. The process is quite miraculous.

I realize that you aren't trying to dispute evolution, I just thought you might like to see a more detailed explanation of the development of the bacterial flagellum than what was offered in the Nova presentation.

Of course, it's only a guess that it actually happened this way (although since the theory was first presented, a good bit of supporting evidence has been found), but it does kill the ID claim that it couldn't possibly have happened through evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? I don't know, you tell me so what.

Greedy Monk and I were discussing the way the story changed about the origin of Spider-Man's powers. This is called retconning. I called retconning junk science, whereupon you got upset about that and launched into a couple of lengthy rants.

And now you're asking me "so what"? Are you having a hard time keeping up with the conversation?

Yep.

Namaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize that you aren't trying to dispute evolution, I just thought you might like to see a more detailed explanation of the development of the bacterial flagellum than what was offered in the Nova presentation.

Of course, it's only a guess that it actually happened this way (although since the theory was first presented, a good bit of supporting evidence has been found), but it does kill the ID claim that it couldn't possibly have happened through evolution.

Ok I went and watched the video and must admit I was pretty clueless, I've never had a biology class and am surpirsed I figured out about the birds and the bees on my own :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok I went and watched the video and must admit I was pretty clueless, I've never had a biology class and am surpirsed I figured out about the birds and the bees on my own :)

Don't feel too bad about it, apparently the ID supporters don't understand it either... or they're deliberately lying.

Dr. Matzke published his explanation in 2003. In 2005, there were people testifying under oath that evolution can't explain how the flagellum came into being. It's a claim that they're still making to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh .... so what?

Namaste

Yep.

Namaste

Wow. That's two short posts in a row.

In case you didn't read Soph's links, retconning is something that is done in response to new writers coming in with new ideas, or just the old writers being forced to change the story that was written. In the later case, it's either caused by their publishers or editors, or by themselves after coming up with new ideas that did not fit with the old. Regardless of who is responsible, retconning makes for a weak explanation. Ask Cathy Bates.

“HE DIDN’T GET OUT OF THE COCKADOODIE CAR!”

~Misery~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. That's two short posts in a row.

In case you didn't read Soph's links, retconning is something that is done in response to new writers coming in with new ideas, or just the old writers being forced to change the story that was written. In the later case, it's either caused by their publishers or editors, or by themselves after coming up with new ideas that did not fit with the old. Regardless of who is responsible, retconning makes for a weak explanation. Ask Cathy Bates.

“HE DIDN’T GET OUT OF THE COCKADOODIE CAR!”

~Misery~

OK. Thaniks. Good 'ol Cathy.

Namaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this