Dan,

The notion of history as an illusion was an extrapolation from your comment saying we can only know things, when we have been there in the beginning: i.e., you were saying citing unexperienced history is weak. Here, I was merely magnifying your argument to call the basic assumption into question. Similar reasoning implies: How can anyone know definitively the current line of British monarch extends from 1066 until today, unless one was there all along to measure it? The same goes for the life of trees, based on said assumption. My existentialist example is well-known to philosophy and was not contrived to put words in your mouth.

- Is the history of tree rings trickery?

My comment on the Earth being flat was based on the literal interpretation of the Bible bundled under the banner of infallibility. It is good to learn you believe the Earth isn’t flat and in this instance see the Bible fallible, with regards to scientific knowledge.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, I suspect most major scientists would have believed in god or held their opposing opinions to themselves. My point regarding ox carts and space craft was that in the era of ox carts people viewed their reality differently: e.g., they saw the heavens (space) as supernatural and terra firma as natural. Their world-views are different to ours'.

Response: Famous (period) scientist and NASA?

- Newton held than Earth was over 50,000 years old:

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mod3_SunlightSolarHeat/UnderstandingOfSun/

- NASA holds Earth to be greater than 6,000 years old:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=nasa+age+earth&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

- How old are mature stars? When did light leave distant stars?

George,

I was saying infallibility should be dealt with equal caution as a 6,000 year old Earth: e.g., papal infallibility ex cathedra (Catholic) and the literal, infallible Bible (Protestant).

Primarily, my comment on Catholics and Protestants turned-on Relda’s contribution not my own: “… the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures serves as merely a substitute for ‘Papal infallibility’ - if, when all words are considered, are taken literally”. relda 8/9

Dear George,

The yin-yang is different from the other dichotomies you mentioned (magnetic poles and charges in physics, content-form, the binary system that our computers “run on”, etc). The other dichotomies that you mentioned operate on the basis of Aristotelian logic. They are either A or Not A.

The Yin-yang is divided into a dark and a light part. In the light part is a small dark circle. In the dark part is a small light circle. This is an idea expressed in art, human interaction and other relationship. An artist painting a white building next to the sea may show patches of blue on the building reflecting the sea and patches of white in the sea reflecting the building. In interacting we influence each other. There is a little bit of you in me and a little bit of me in you. We can expand this indefinitely. The little bit of you in me contains a bit of me that is in you. The dichotomy between us fades as we look at ourselves more closely.

On this thread many of us are at odds because we are focusing on definitions. Some of us have defined ourselves by one criterion - that of religious belief. If we looked for the yin in the yang and vice versa we would not be at such odds.

Dan S de Merengue asked: "Can you name one famous scientist from this period who didn’t believe Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old?"

Dear Dan,

Because an eminent scientist from this period believed Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old does not mean that belief was the cause of his eminence. That would be confusing correlation with causation. However, we cannot be sure of their beliefs because it was not safe to question religious doctrines.

Michael Servetus (1511–1553) was theologian, physician, cartographer and humanist. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included astronomy and meteorology; geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in medicine and theology. He later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. The Protestant John Calvin had him burned at the stake.

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), was an Italian philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, and occultist best known as a proponent of heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies. The Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy and had him burned at the stake.

Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity either. He was more circumspect in his beliefs than Bruno or Servetus. After his death his heresy was discovered in the writings he left.

Considering that Christian fundamentalists have a strong voice in the US Congress I suspect NASA scientists do not feel free to announce unorthodox religious beliefs.

"The study of Christian theology is a study of texts and traditions that have been handed down over thousands of years..they are the result of historical event."

Are they indeed? Show me your primary sources within a century of the alleged events in this canon in confirmation of that that is the new testament? None? Show me the secondary, none? Thought so.

So how is "humanity" linked to your particular myth in any way other than dogmatism, or can we assume that our progress from Africa on any time scale dwarfs this christian illusion/allusion?

Hence our humanity has been well defined across, perhaps, millions of years without this particular fairy story choking us or our definitions of ourselves.

Oliver,

Thanks for your kinds words. With my ‘up front’, ‘no nonsense’ and sometimes harsh way of speaking I feel some are too afraid to mention when I make a good point. Nevertheless, I still get the occasional compliment.

Thanks again.

Dan,

<<The main reason I’ve lost inclination to engage with AJ is his constant accusations of lies and deception.>>

As I said earlier, I have always been careful never to make an accusation that I could substantiate, and so far, I haven’t. I think I at least deserve some credit for that.

But that’s okay if don’t want to engage with me anymore, just remember though, that the If-I-ignore-them-long-enough-then-eventually-they’ll-go-away theory only works if the person you plan to ignore does what they do to get a reaction from you, and as I have stated before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121123), I do what I do because the truth and reason must always prevail, and so far, they have.

You are such a well tempered person, Dan, that if getting a reaction from you was my intent, then I would have given up long ago.

No, I will continue to respond for as long as you continue to assult the truth. I promise you that. We're in this for the long haul - you and me.

Our posts are very necessary on this forum. We are like Ying and Yang. I wouldn’t want to stop you posting here, after all, you state the creationist claim, and I debunk it. It’s quite beautiful really.

We all need to do what we can to stand up for the truth in this world, and I do that right here.

<<We come here to this website to engage with others and hear different points of view.>>

I would hope that we come here to learn as well, and learning is certainly not what you’re doing.

I acknowledge others when they make good points against my arguments, and it would be nice if you could do the same once in a while instead of dodging and crying foul, only to later repeat the same flawed argument later on.

Continued...

Continued...

<<However, one cannot have a civil conversation with someone who thinks of you as a lying scoundrel.>>

“Lying scoundrel” sounds a bit harsh, but yes, you can. It’s easy...

Acknowledge when you’re wrong and don’t repeat points that have been shown to be wrong. I’ve always been vigilant to ensure that I make corrections when corrections were due (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#150511).

<<I and others on this website have often discussed the weighty contributions Christians (and other theists) have made to modern science.>>

No, you've argued “Creationists” specifically.

But as I have said before, it doesn't matter what you believe, only why you believe it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121765).

<<AJ accuses creationists of never using the scientific method. Yet it was creationists who invented the scientific method.>>

And as I pointed out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121498, those “Creationists” relied on the natural methodology and only ever found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, because they didn't allow their religious convictions to subvert or inhibit their inquiry.

But this has already been pointed out to you several times in this thread.

<<...can you name one famous scientist from this period who didn’t believe Biblical Scriptures to be true and that the world was something in the order of 6,000 years old?>>

Newton didn't know about DNA, but does that mean it doesn't exist?

<<Earlier I mentioned how NASA was founded in a country that claims a strong Christian culture.>>

And earlier, I asked you who these people were and you couldn't answer.

<<NASA space ships were built by people who thought the world less than 6000 years old.>>

Even if they were, that would be irrelevant since accepting the Earth's age is inconsequential to much of NASA’s work. Correlation does not imply causation, remember.

<< Why don’t you [Oliver] Google search it [the allegded NASA people]?>>

I tried, Dan, but found nothing. That’s why I asked you earlier in this thread who these people were.

But I believe Davidf has covered this sufficiently.

...or was it just the 'Tea & Tidy' boy of the assistant of one of the guys in the Control Room?