The Bible is a book of faith and morals. Morals is a a component of the social contract between a person and his society. As society evolved over time, and so did the moral contract defined in the Bible.
The thing that bothers me with the bible as a basis for scientific thought is as follows: When the Bible became a political tool of kings, these monarchs decided what material was in their interest to retain or discard. In 325AD, the First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Trinitarian issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons. He assigned the unification function to his theological experts. he did not force his own view because he did not have one about Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church. This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the current view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others to downgrade the godhead of Crist.. Gnosticism was rejected by the concil and all gnostic books of the Bible were relighted to the ashcan of history. If Gnosticism became main stream as a theology, the universe would have been created in a different way...sort of like Scientology teaches today. King James of England reworked the Bible again as political exercise in 1611 to conform with his need for the new version to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. You know about this things...true? On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > Yes, I am a Bible Literalist. Not because I forced myself to be that; but > because the evidence I have studied points in that direction. > > Science is about the search for the Truth. It is not about the religion > of Naturalistic Methodologism. Science must consider all possible causes, > not just causes we can smell, see, hear, taste and touch. The search for > the truth must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion. If the evidence > points to a naturalistic solution, so be it. On the other hand, If the > evidence points to a metaphysical solution, then it must not be excluded. > > BTW, this might further cause Cognitive Dissonance for some people here, > but realize that the patriach of Modern Science was a Believer and Bible > Literalist. Isaac Newton wrote thousands of pages of Bible commentary. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same > time and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just > from curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including > Creation and Noah's Ark. You can write directly to me< I respect your > faith. > Peter > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of >> Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and >> don't want to clutter it with other subjects. There is no need to ask me >> to stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question >> posted about it. >> >> Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated. >> >> While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased. If >> I being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the >> rules of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and >> perform that unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and >> asked to leave, and no doubt by you. Am I not right? >> >> Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant >> violation of the rules of civility of this forum? >> >> Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from >> James and my admiration meter for you will jump. >> >> While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from >> discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its >> absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and >> further serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really >> as open-minded as they claim to be. >> >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute? >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >> >> Dear Jojo, >> >> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the >> simple reason that >> the analogy is not valid. >> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, >> alternative, in a way complementary solutions. >> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and >> we (you too) >> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am >> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist >> preacher keeps me informed with ID. >> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute >> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major >>> cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge >>> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a >>> central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just >>> pissed you off too much with facts and logic. >>> >>> OK. Whatever. >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, >>> nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When >>> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive >>> dissonance and react like this. >>> >>> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold >>> Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid >>> criticism of its Darwinian religion. >>> >>> The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >>> >>> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. >>> >>> Go fuck yourself. >>> >>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. >>>> >>>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? >>>> >>>> Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the >>>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent >>>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random >>>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the >>>> exact opposite of Randomness. >>>> >>>> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence >>>> requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of >>>> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance >>>> of occuring. >>>> >>>> "There is a God" >>>> >>>> "ethresi da Go" - (No, this is not a foreign language. This >>>> is a random mixture of the same letters above.) >>>> >>>> >>>> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far >>>> as randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a >>>> huge difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information >>>> of course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an >>>> idea? And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. >>>> >>>> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; >>>> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of >>>> Information in our DNA. >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >>>> >>>> No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. >>>> >>>> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are >>>> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and >>>> attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, >>>> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison. >>>> >>>> In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and >>>> Intelligent Design. >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ** >>>>> Distinguish what from what? >>>>> >>>>> Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and >>>>> experiments in Intelligent Design? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >>>>> >>>>> Jojo, >>>>> >>>>> Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? >>>>> There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >
