Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

I stopped to smell the roses....

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • odd man out wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      BirdBrain wrote:

      I agree AK. In my attempt to be profound, I may have sounded snarky. It was not my intent. I intended to glorify the Creator of all things, not minimize the attempt to learn about His creation.


      Sorry, BB, didn't mean to bristle. I have too many fundamentalist friends (both Christians and atheists) who think that being a scientist is somehow incompatible with being a Christian.

      I point out to them that Gen. 2:19 is the birth of science. (It continues to be commanded elsewhere.)


      I think I see where everyone is coming from. As a scientist who tends to look at everything rationally, I sometimes envy those who can more easily generate an emotional response to things. It just isn't the way my brain works. As for those who see an inherent incompatibility between science and religion, I'm a scientist/Christian and work with scientist/Muslims/Jews/atheists/etc... No one in my circle of friends has a problem with it.

      However there are SOME religious beliefs that ARE incompatible with science. If you believe for religious reasons that the world if flat or 6000 years old or your Zodiac sign determines your personality, then that is not compatible with science. To be clear, I have no problem with any of this either. It's their religion and they can believe what they want. What is not appropriate if for anyone to create bogus pseudo-science to justify their religious beliefs. Not only is it bad science (fact), it is also bad theology (my opinion). The next question is how do you determine what is a valid scientific idea vs bogus psuedo-science? It is very simple really. If you think your ideas are scientifically valid, then they will be published in an established, peer-reviewed scientific journal. That's it. Very simple.


      True science and true religion will be compatible...if truth is what they both seak.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • BB, I'll respect your belief, but the "appearance of great age" argument, to me, is equally faulty: it makes the Creator into a liar. He created a world with evidence that is nearly entirely self-consistent of an astonishingly great age. To me, it's like the argument that He created it last Thursday, with all our memories already in our minds.

      But an overly literal interpretation of the start of Genesis limits the Creator too much. He created time itself, and stands outside of time in a place not of the world. A thousand years in His sight are as a watch in the night.

      We are created in His image, and we can begin to discern how He might make things by examining how we elaborate His Creation by making lesser things. A director making a movie doesn't do it in two hours, much less set all in motion during the opening credits. A novelist frequently writes the concluding scenes first, and then fills in the rest of the story.

      The difference of human and Divine times (and possibly angelic time: angels are not bound to our space and time nor, as creatures, do they exist in the eternity of the Creator) explains how the different creation narratives can proceed in different sequence: Genesis tells the same story twice, once with humans created male and female from the inception, and once with Eve created from Adam's rib. The vision of Job gives another sequence entirely. God is in His time, we in ours, and the prophets and angels may not even know when they are having their visions what time they are witnessing.

      So I wind up considering the specifics of the narrative as a powerful story - serving to remind us that the Universe is a thing created, and we within it are also creatures, and that the entire span of time - which, if the astronomers are to be believed is billions of years - was still six days of making for our omnipotent God. Does this diminish His power or the inerrancy of His word to guide us? I think not! A Supreme Being that is capable of creating that is greater indeed than the vision of Moses could comprehend.

      And none of this contradicts our shared belief in the moral implication of the passage. Neither explanation is inconsistent with the idea that all humans share a unique pair of ancestors, supernaturally infused with the gift of the human spirit, and free from sin and blessed with a perfect vision of Creation until the Fall. That through the Fall we are all cursed with the inclination to sin, not by imitation but by descent, and cursed with an imperfect vision - whence the present disagreement. That, through His goodness, our Creator has raised us up again, offering covenant again and again, and in His mercy keeping us in His care even as we reject His covenants again and again. That's the real meat of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

      Taking it literalistically, rather than recognizing that the human authors of the Bible couched their inspired and inerrant messages in similitudes, riddles, parables and metaphors, seems nearly as shallow an interpretation as saying that Revelation 7:1 compels us to draw all our maps of the Earth like this.
      [IMG:http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/d/db/PeirceQuincuncialProjection.jpg]

      And I've gone on way too long, once again. I Corinthians 13:2.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • Let me be simple. I believe what the Bible says. It gives a clear story of creation and a clear genealogy from Adam to Christ. I believe it. I literally believe it. To do otherwise is to open the door to discounting anything any generation does not like. Believe what you may. I believe the God that created all things is able to convey His Word properly.
      Non hikers are about a psi shy of a legal ball.

    • BirdBrain wrote:

      Let me be simple. I believe what the Bible says. It gives a clear story of creation and a clear genealogy from Adam to Christ. I believe it. I literally believe it. To do otherwise is to open the door to discounting anything any generation does not like. Believe what you may. I believe the God that created all things is able to convey His Word properly.


      The Bible says what it says, and in the confusion of tongues we flawed humans hear different things in it. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is working to make sure that we hear what we need to hear, and God has promised never to take His Spirit from us. Haste the day when He gathers all things to Himself, and all is made known.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      BB, I'll respect your belief, but the "appearance of great age" argument, to me, is equally faulty: it makes the Creator into a liar. He created a world with evidence that is nearly entirely self-consistent of an astonishingly great age. To me, it's like the argument that He created it last Thursday, with all our memories already in our minds.

      But an overly literal interpretation of the start of Genesis limits the Creator too much. He created time itself, and stands outside of time in a place not of the world. A thousand years in His sight are as a watch in the night.

      We are created in His image, and we can begin to discern how He might make things by examining how we elaborate His Creation by making lesser things. A director making a movie doesn't do it in two hours, much less set all in motion during the opening credits. A novelist frequently writes the concluding scenes first, and then fills in the rest of the story.

      The difference of human and Divine times (and possibly angelic time: angels are not bound to our space and time nor, as creatures, do they exist in the eternity of the Creator) explains how the different creation narratives can proceed in different sequence: Genesis tells the same story twice, once with humans created male and female from the inception, and once with Eve created from Adam's rib. The vision of Job gives another sequence entirely. God is in His time, we in ours, and the prophets and angels may not even know when they are having their visions what time they are witnessing.

      So I wind up considering the specifics of the narrative as a powerful story - serving to remind us that the Universe is a thing created, and we within it are also creatures, and that the entire span of time - which, if the astronomers are to be believed is billions of years - was still six days of making for our omnipotent God. Does this diminish His power or the inerrancy of His word to guide us? I think not! A Supreme Being that is capable of creating that is greater indeed than the vision of Moses could comprehend.

      And none of this contradicts our shared belief in the moral implication of the passage. Neither explanation is inconsistent with the idea that all humans share a unique pair of ancestors, supernaturally infused with the gift of the human spirit, and free from sin and blessed with a perfect vision of Creation until the Fall. That through the Fall we are all cursed with the inclination to sin, not by imitation but by descent, and cursed with an imperfect vision - whence the present disagreement. That, through His goodness, our Creator has raised us up again, offering covenant again and again, and in His mercy keeping us in His care even as we reject His covenants again and again. That's the real meat of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

      Taking it literalistically, rather than recognizing that the human authors of the Bible couched their inspired and inerrant messages in similitudes, riddles, parables and metaphors, seems nearly as shallow an interpretation as saying that Revelation 7:1 compels us to draw all our maps of the Earth like this.
      [IMG:http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/d/db/PeirceQuincuncialProjection.jpg]

      And I've gone on way too long, once again. I Corinthians 13:2.


      The more the word the less the meaning.....Ecclesiastes 6:11
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • Drybones wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      BB, I'll respect your belief, but the "appearance of great age" argument, to me, is equally faulty: it makes the Creator into a liar. He created a world with evidence that is nearly entirely self-consistent of an astonishingly great age. To me, it's like the argument that He created it last Thursday, with all our memories already in our minds.

      But an overly literal interpretation of the start of Genesis limits the Creator too much. He created time itself, and stands outside of time in a place not of the world. A thousand years in His sight are as a watch in the night.

      We are created in His image, and we can begin to discern how He might make things by examining how we elaborate His Creation by making lesser things. A director making a movie doesn't do it in two hours, much less set all in motion during the opening credits. A novelist frequently writes the concluding scenes first, and then fills in the rest of the story.

      The difference of human and Divine times (and possibly angelic time: angels are not bound to our space and time nor, as creatures, do they exist in the eternity of the Creator) explains how the different creation narratives can proceed in different sequence: Genesis tells the same story twice, once with humans created male and female from the inception, and once with Eve created from Adam's rib. The vision of Job gives another sequence entirely. God is in His time, we in ours, and the prophets and angels may not even know when they are having their visions what time they are witnessing.

      So I wind up considering the specifics of the narrative as a powerful story - serving to remind us that the Universe is a thing created, and we within it are also creatures, and that the entire span of time - which, if the astronomers are to be believed is billions of years - was still six days of making for our omnipotent God. Does this diminish His power or the inerrancy of His word to guide us? I think not! A Supreme Being that is capable of creating that is greater indeed than the vision of Moses could comprehend.

      And none of this contradicts our shared belief in the moral implication of the passage. Neither explanation is inconsistent with the idea that all humans share a unique pair of ancestors, supernaturally infused with the gift of the human spirit, and free from sin and blessed with a perfect vision of Creation until the Fall. That through the Fall we are all cursed with the inclination to sin, not by imitation but by descent, and cursed with an imperfect vision - whence the present disagreement. That, through His goodness, our Creator has raised us up again, offering covenant again and again, and in His mercy keeping us in His care even as we reject His covenants again and again. That's the real meat of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

      Taking it literalistically, rather than recognizing that the human authors of the Bible couched their inspired and inerrant messages in similitudes, riddles, parables and metaphors, seems nearly as shallow an interpretation as saying that Revelation 7:1 compels us to draw all our maps of the Earth like this.
      [IMG:http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/d/db/PeirceQuincuncialProjection.jpg]

      And I've gone on way too long, once again. I Corinthians 13:2.


      The more the word the less the meaning.....Ecclesiastes 6:11


      its all good.......hikerboy 1:1
      its all good

    • A lot of people take science as truth, I don't.
      I have a definition of science that I think is more realistic, I say that science is our current best understanding.
      That way there's always the possibility of new discovery in science. Just look at the periodic table, the number of elements on it has changed from time to time. If it was declared to be truth there would be no possibility for change.

    • LIhikers wrote:

      A lot of people take science as truth, I don't.
      I have a definition of science that I think is more realistic, I say that science is our current best understanding.
      That way there's always the possibility of new discovery in science. Just look at the periodic table, the number of elements on it has changed from time to time. If it was declared to be truth there would be no possibility for change.

      i am reading a book called "trespassing on einstein's lawn" about the nature of reality itself. one of the things it points out in the beginning is that every single scientific theory humankind has come up with has eventually been disproven.if you're into quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy,string theory,multiverses,etc. you'll find it an excellent read.
      time, being that it is relative to the observer.is not real at all, but a manmade construct that enables the brain to process information sequentially.
      religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive.
      its all good

    • hikerboy wrote:

      LIhikers wrote:

      A lot of people take science as truth, I don't.
      I have a definition of science that I think is more realistic, I say that science is our current best understanding.
      That way there's always the possibility of new discovery in science. Just look at the periodic table, the number of elements on it has changed from time to time. If it was declared to be truth there would be no possibility for change.

      i am reading a book called "trespassing on einstein's lawn" about the nature of reality itself. one of the things it points out in the beginning is that every single scientific theory humankind has come up with has eventually been disproven.if you're into quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy,string theory,multiverses,etc. you'll find it an excellent read.
      time, being that it is relative to the observer.is not real at all, but a manmade construct that enables the brain to process information sequentially.
      religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive.


      Haven't you been reading that book for about six months? ^^
      Lost in the right direction.

    • CoachLou wrote:

      I stole the idea....it is not the same as THE Other Thread

      poison-ivy.org/quiz/index.htm

      .......as long as we are talking about smelling roses :rolleyes:


      I've looked at a lot of pictures of poison ivy but I still can't identify it. That scares me a little as sometimes I use leaves to blot certain areas =O . Thank goodness I have never had poison ivy. I have never had a tick on me either. I must be doing it wrong. :)
      Lost in the right direction.

    • I hate to be cynical...but I will....science used to be a search for truth, it's become a search for how to justify my belief. People tend to believe anything in writing and whatever they hear on the tube...people can write or say anything but that don't make it fact.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • Lou, did I ever tell you about my hiking poles? They are blue and are the kind that are are made of an elliptical shaped tube, not the regular circular tube aluminum, very strong. I couldn't find them in green though.
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • Drybones wrote:

      I hate to be cynical...but I will....science used to be a search for truth, it's become a search for how to justify my belief. People tend to believe anything in writing and whatever they hear on the tube...people can write or say anything but that don't make it fact.


      While taking classes to get a degree at MMA, I was required to give a speech that was designed to convince the class of a controversial idea. I showed them this picture without telling them what it was.



      All I told them was that it was a motor, we did not make it, and it is the best picture we are able to get of it. I let them use their imagination as to what it was. Most thought it was alien technology. Then I went into the math of the odds of a piece of paper randomly folding itself into a paper bird. I made this bird as I talked.



      I asked them if they found this bird would they assume it folded itself? They were a bit perturbed at my dumb question. Then I asked them if the bird or the motor was more complex. They in unison stated that the motor was more complex. I asked them what conclusions can we make from the picture of the motor as to its origins. They came up with a list that boiled down to intelligent design. Then I showed them this artist rendering of the motor.



      I told them it was the propulsion system of a single cell bacteria. I sat back as the class ate each other. Finally one person started calling me names and characterizing my beliefs (which I never stated in the speech). A devote atheist stood up and started yelling at my accuser that I said no such thing and that the class gave the conclusions and not me.

      Science used to be a pursuit of the truth. We have the best equipment in all of history to see that truth. It is more evident than ever. My speech in that class reveals the issue. People are not interested in truth. Like I have stated many times in my alcohol stove thread, I go wherever the results take me. I am stubborn, but not stupid. I stubbornly gave up on my fight with God on 10/18/1980. I believe it is reasonable to argue who made all things. I find it void of all logic to conclude that things just happened.

      By the way, the teacher was not happy with the state of the class at the end of my speech. A break was taken to restore order. I did get the highest grade though.
      Non hikers are about a psi shy of a legal ball.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BirdBrain ().

    • LIhikers wrote:

      A lot of people take science as truth, I don't.
      I have a definition of science that I think is more realistic, I say that science is our current best understanding.
      That way there's always the possibility of new discovery in science. Just look at the periodic table, the number of elements on it has changed from time to time. If it was declared to be truth there would be no possibility for change.


      Exactly right. Nothing in science is fixed. It's a collection of hypotheses with varying amounts of evidence supporting them. The very best of them - ones that have been show correctly to predict experimental results in a great many cases - get dignified with the term ''theory' or 'law'. Scientists are reluctant to upset these, not as an article of faith, but rather because whatever new hypothesis comes along must continue correctly to predict the old results.

      The genius of the periodic table is that it represents an understanding of how elements come about: what they are made of. There are empty places only at the end because the laws of physics underlying it allow for certain elements, each assigned a number, and no others. It is a strong prediction that there will never be new elements discovered in the middle: there will be no element 37 1/2. So far that prediction has stood for over a century, even when the physics underlying it has seemed shaky. The other prediction that it made - that no element ever transforms into another - was overturned just over a century ago by nuclear physics. It still remains pretty much a 100% law for day-to-day chemistry. And in fact, that was a high hurdle that nuclear physics had to clear. Before it was accepted, it had to explain not only that occasionally one element did transform into another, but be consistent with all the previous experiments in which it did not happen.

      And - our best current understanding is all we've got. Science does not - and never will - tell us that it's good to cure disease and bad to run over patients with your car. And I've never found in my faith a detailed explanation of how to cure a patient or why my car won't start. So I keep plugging away at improving my microscopes, hoping that other scientists will be able to do better medicine and make better fuel injectors by using them. I praise God for making a world in which this is possible, even as I occasionally curse him for making it so damnably difficult. (I feel comfortable in that level of cursing. The Psalmist said much worse things about Him.)
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      I may be about to go on a 500 mile "pilgrimage" but I ain't gonna join in on the religious debate.
      More dangerous than Weiner jokes....


      Indeed. So I'll remain with one foot resolutely in each camp. The world is a thing created, and its Creator arranged it so that wonderful things arise in it, apparently spontaneously. I see the clearest evidence of His Majesty in that He can do these things while following His laws that we creatures can comprehend. To me, a God who would need to intervene supernaturally at every turn would be a lesser God. A God who can devise universal gravitation, in all to keep the stars in their courses is greater, not smaller, than a God who must assign angels to push them.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • TrafficJam wrote:

      Weiner jokes are dangerous?


      I never had a problem with Wiener jokes. This one's my favorite.


      Norbert Wiener was renowned for his absent-mindedness. When he and his family moved from Cambridge to Newton his wife, knowing that he would be of absolutely no help, packed him off to MIT while she directed the move. Since she was certain that he would forget that they had moved and where they had moved to, she wrote down the new address on a piece of paper, and gave it to him. Naturally, in the course of the day, some insight occurred to him. He reached in his pocket, found a piece of paper on which he furiously scribbled some notes, thought it over, decided there was a fallacy in his idea, and threw the piece of paper away in disgust.

      At the end of the day he went home – to the old address in Cambridge, of course. When he got there he realised that they had moved, that he had no idea where they had moved to, and that the piece of paper with the address was long gone. Fortunately inspiration struck. There was a young girl on the street and he conceived the idea of asking her where he had moved to, saying, “Excuse me, perhaps you know me. I’m Norbert Wiener and we’ve just moved. Would you know where we’ve moved to?” To which the young girl replied, “Yes Daddy, Mommy thought you would forget.”
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • I find myself at a loss for words in an attempt to give God the credit for things He did. I bow out and go back to the purpose of this site (hiking) with a final praise to the One that did it completely and intact as described in His perfect immutable Word. I believe You Lord.

      Rev 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
      Non hikers are about a psi shy of a legal ball.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by BirdBrain ().

    • BirdBrain wrote:

      I find myself at a loss for words in an attempt to give God the credit for things He did. I bow out and go back to the purpose of this site (hiking) with a final praise to the One that did it completely and intact as described in His perfect immutable Word.


      On that we agree.

      "Know ye that the LORD He is God: it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture." Ps 100:3
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      LIhikers wrote:

      A lot of people take science as truth, I don't.
      I have a definition of science that I think is more realistic, I say that science is our current best understanding.
      That way there's always the possibility of new discovery in science. Just look at the periodic table, the number of elements on it has changed from time to time. If it was declared to be truth there would be no possibility for change.


      Exactly right. Nothing in science is fixed. It's a collection of hypotheses with varying amounts of evidence supporting them. The very best of them - ones that have been show correctly to predict experimental results in a great many cases - get dignified with the term ''theory' or 'law'. Scientists are reluctant to upset these, not as an article of faith, but rather because whatever new hypothesis comes along must continue correctly to predict the old results. ...


      Very well stated Kevin, although I make a distinction between theory and law. A law is a statement of something that is always observed, but make no attempt to explain why it happens. A theory is a model that explains why things are the way they are. For example, the law of gravity is a mathematical equation. Plug in the numbers and it tells you the attractive force between masses. It always works, but nothing in the equation says why. The Theory of General Relativity says that mass warps space-time and this is why there is an attractive force between objects that we call gravity.

      I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard the phrase "it's only a theory (referring to an established theory), or "this theory hasn't been proven" in the context are arguing against a particular scientific theory. To a scientist, both statements sound really stupid and only demonstrate that the person who makes these statements know nothing about science. To say it is "only a theory" is pointless, as this simply means it is not anything else (a ping pong ball or spork, e.g.). The implied assumption is that a theory is something relatively inadequate, which is in fact not true. It's a bit like saying "A Bugatti is just a car". It is a true statement, but rather pointless. Likewise, to say "this theory hasn't been proven" is equally pointless since it is not the purpose of a theory to be proven. Again, it's a bit like saying "A Bugatti did not win the Super Bowl". A true but pointless statement.

    • Science is not a pursuit for truth, although non-scientists often don't understand that and scientists often forget that.

      As to BB's rhetorical question, of course the molecular motor can assemble itself because it comes from a living organism, and life has this unique ability to utilize adaptive solutions to generate complex structures and solve complex problems. Humans, on the other hand tend to favor prescriptive solutions, which don't work so well. The adaptive solutions of life create complex structures that give the illusion of "intelligent design" to humans working with a prescriptive paradigm.

    • odd man out wrote:

      Science is not a pursuit for truth, although non-scientists often don't understand that and scientists often forget that.

      As to BB's rhetorical question, of course the molecular motor can assemble itself because it comes from a living organism, and life has this unique ability to utilize adaptive solutions to generate complex structures and solve complex problems. Humans, on the other hand tend to favor prescriptive solutions, which don't work so well. The adaptive solutions of life create complex structures that give the illusion of "intelligent design" to humans working with a prescriptive paradigm.


      What is lost in the discussion is that there is something infinitely more important than who is right which is the only motive I have in speaking on a subject that no one wants to discuss.... especially on a hiking sight.
      Non hikers are about a psi shy of a legal ball.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BirdBrain ().