Axil, I feel your pain and I agree. The issues you raised below are valid
criticisms. But there is one thing you need to realize. These actions are the
actions of the Catholic Church, not the real Biblical Christian Church. The
Catholic Church is a political construction and indeed was used as a political
tool to subdue people, including the real Christian Church, who went
underground during the reign of the Catholic Church until recently. Indeed the
history of much of Europe is the story of the Catholic Pope's vie for political
power. So, in fact, the real Christian Church was as much a victim of the
excesses and political ambitions of the Catholic Church as the rest.
However, there are a couple of things I need to correct in your posts below:
1. The Bible is indeed a book of faith and morals; but it is also definitely a
book of history. Archeaologists have long since verified almost all of the
historical accounts of the Bible. It is a scientifically verifiable historical
account of many many many events. I think you will agree with this.
2. The Bible is a book of Morals, but not between men in his society. It is a
book of covenants between man and God. That is why we call it a Testament -
The Old and the New Testaments. A Testament is a Covenant.
3. With regards to Gnosticism, in fact Early Christians were correct in
rejecting it. Gnosticism is a corruption of Biblical Teaching and was
pridominantly the result of Early Christians attempts to incorporate Eastern
Mysticism into Christian teachings.
4. King James did not rework the Bible. He commissioned it to be translated
to common English. The Bible was already a completed collection of books
during his time. But no common English translation was done, so he did it.
No, King James had nothing to do at all in changing the contents of the Bible.
It would seem that his King James translation was a change because of the many
erroneous practices of the Catholic Church at that time. When people read the
real Bible, they started to realize that Catholic teachings were a corruption
of real Biblical teachings.
Jojo
BTW, Constantine was never a Christian. He simply used Christianity to unify
his kingdom.
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
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
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
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
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
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
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
