ufobuster

[citizenzen]

It was my mistake Tao.

I've chatted with Avi enough to know that he's a believer in science and that FS is a literal interpreter of the Bible. I was trying to let him know that the discussion wasn't going to go very far, but I would have been better off letting him find that out for himself.

My apologies to FS and Avi, for butting into your discussion without offering something more substantive. FS, while I can't promise that I won't infuriate you in the future, I'll try to make sure your anger is caused by a subject germane to the topic being discussed.

Peace out, my little Texas tornado.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It was my mistake Tao.

I've chatted with Avi enough to know that he's a believer in science and that FS is a literal interpreter of the Bible. I was trying to let him know that the discussion wasn't going to go very far, but I would have been better off letting him find that out for himself.

My apologies to FS and Avi, for butting into your discussion without offering something more substantive. FS, while I can't promise that I won't infuriate you in the future, I'll try to make sure your anger is caused by a subject germane to the topic being discussed.

Peace out, my little Texas tornado.

No problem CZ.

Actually the reason that I posted on this thread was because it caught my attention that FS had participated in a radio blog, and I always think it is cool to see technology being used in novel ways.

Also, in terms of literal interpretation of the Bible, I know many people who are literal believers, and have had very interesting discussions. In some cases they know more about the OT than I do, even though I am Jewish. It depends how it is approached. If there is mutual respect and interest in learning, a lot can often be accomplished. And that is the feeling I get about how FS approaches it, from her posts that I have seen so far.

But the reason for my second post on this thread was because although I do not agree that aliens have visited us, I do think there are some interesting possibilities about life beginning extraterrestially:

Origin of organic molecules

There are two possible sources of organic molecules on the early Earth:

1. Terrestrial origins - organic synthesis driven by impact shocks or by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (eg.Miller's experiments)
2. Extraterrestrial origins - delivery by objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites) or gravitational attraction of organic molecules or primitive life-forms from space

Recently, estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Ga within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy sources.[29]

I think this idea is one that people are still getting used to.

Reference: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

What I do not understand is why believing God has to be seperate from believing in science.

FS, I believe in both G-d and science. I am not suggesting that you should not.

Science supports inter-dimensions.. Science supports gene-manipulation. Science supports hybrid species

Right !

which is the nephilim I spoke of.

Now I think you are diverging from what we would call science.

God supports science..

How ? My reading about G-d leads me to believe in a pantheistic or perhaps panentheist view of G-d. Interestingly, in my opinion this vision of G-d is very consistent with the OT view of G-d. In this view G-d is non-anthropomorphic and non-corporeal. How can this G-d support anything ?

God did create everything and we are only just learning His language of creation which is proving to be mathematics.

I kind of like that interpretation

So I do not agree that I am not speaking scientifically when I am speaking of God and the bible.

Perhaps we can discuss this further ....

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

FS,

You still have trouble with that whole 'turning the other cheek' malarkey don't you

Well my idea of "turning the other cheek" might be a bit different than yours. I think telling someone they are rude is entirely appropriate.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It was my mistake Tao.

I've chatted with Avi enough to know that he's a believer in science and that FS is a literal interpreter of the Bible. I was trying to let him know that the discussion wasn't going to go very far, but I would have been better off letting him find that out for himself.

My apologies to FS and Avi, for butting into your discussion without offering something more substantive. FS, while I can't promise that I won't infuriate you in the future, I'll try to make sure your anger is caused by a subject germane to the topic being discussed.

Peace out, my little Texas tornado.

Its all good. Ive had this same situation with a few other people here. As I reflect theres never been an intention to hurt its more a style of posting but I wear my heart on my sleeve in most things and I have never responded well to mockery and sarcasm. Im up front and honest and I dont believe sarcasm is honest it seems very passive aggressive to me which is probably why I dont deal well with it. Anyways.. apologies accepted and thank you for the respect of offering it when you really didnt have to.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Anyways.. apologies accepted and thank you for the respect of offering it when you really didnt have to.

Likewise, FS. I can't promise sarcasm-free responses. But I do know that these responses are posted in the abstract, absent of the many small cues that soften the impact of mere words and not indicative of our true personalities. As limited as this medium is, it is still engaging and informative and I appreciate that you and others share in it.

Peace to you and others who've had to suffer at the receiving end of my posts. You deserve it.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Avi

No problem CZ.

Actually the reason that I posted on this thread was because it caught my attention that FS had participated in a radio blog, and I always think it is cool to see technology being used in novel ways.

Also, in terms of literal interpretation of the Bible, I know many people who are literal believers, and have had very interesting discussions. In some cases they know more about the OT than I do, even though I am Jewish. It depends how it is approached. If there is mutual respect and interest in learning, a lot can often be accomplished. And that is the feeling I get about how FS approaches it, from her posts that I have seen so far.

But the reason for my second post on this thread was because although I do not agree that aliens have visited us, I do think there are some interesting possibilities about life beginning extraterrestially:



I think this idea is one that people are still getting used to.

Reference: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

have you ever heard of the Gap Theory? Or Progressive Creationsm. The bible allows for different interpretations. I do believe the bible is literal but its not such a close minded thing that people think it is.

I have read some on the whole primordial soup I think its an interesting theory to contemplate. My problem with any of it is proving what is fact and what is just theory. I think we have a responsibility to not let someone or someones make a theory fact when it has little or no evidence... it completely defies the scientific method and caused the whole evolution vs creationism. That debate is causing a division that hurts rather than helps the whole field of science. We cant prove any of it and we are barely touching on the marvels of what God has created.

So many people from many cultures and walks of life have claimed to have seen UFO's.. I would never say that something didnt exist just because I hadnt seen it.. there are many things in this world I havent seen that others have seen and how ignorant I would be if I thought I knew everything. Imagine the first time the Native Americans saw a viking ship.. I bet that story was unbelievable to other tribes as the tale was carried on.

Anyways.. Im open for discussion and noone knows me well enough here to claim that I cannot be open for anything "scientific"because I believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. To me they are one and the same. I refuse to let science merely be a means and method to disprove my God. I instead look at science to prove that He is real. Its a challenge for sure to get past peoples arrogance and self-importance but I like challenges....

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Avi

Now I think you are diverging from what we would call science.



How ? My reading about G-d leads me to believe in a pantheistic or perhaps panentheist view of G-d. Interestingly, in my opinion this vision of G-d is very consistent with the OT view of G-d. In this view G-d is non-anthropomorphic and non-corporeal. How can this G-d support anything ?

My belief in the nephilim is that they are a product of gene-manipulation that carries on today in the research of cloning to even the glow in the dark puppies. There were reports of Giants and there have been bones discovered of giants.. it would also be an explanation for the neanderthal which is another debate that seperates the people.

I would like to rephrase the "God supports science" because you are right God IS all. Science supports God or believing in Science supports my belief in God as creator.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Its a challenge for sure to get past peoples arrogance and self-importance but I like challenges....

Avi, did you hear that? I wouldn't take that if I were you!

And FS, did it feel nice to get that last dig in? You and I may have more in common than you'd like to admit.

[Avi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faithfulservant
Its a challenge for sure to get past peoples arrogance and self-importance but I like challenges....

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Avi, did you hear that? I wouldn't take that if I were you!

And FS, did it feel nice to get that last dig in? You and I may have more in common than you'd like to admit.

Haha, CZ, I think she has us both pegged on that one .

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Avi, did you hear that? I wouldn't take that if I were you!

And FS, did it feel nice to get that last dig in? You and I may have more in common than you'd like to admit.

that wasnt a dig at avi at all that was a dig at the scientific world bent on disproving God.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

that wasnt a dig at avi at all that was a dig at the scientific world bent on disproving God.

FS, you didn't get my wink which indicated I was joking about Avi. If I put a wink in it will indicate that I'm not serious.

I wouldn't be surprised if you meant that last dig at me... even if you don't care to admit it. Luckily, I can take a dig or two.

But if you want to aim it at "science" then I'd have to ask, why do you see science as arrogant and self-important?

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

have you ever heard of the Gap Theory? Or Progressive Creationsm. The bible allows for different interpretations. I do believe the bible is literal but its not such a close minded thing that people think it is.

Hi FS, after your post, I just read a little about these theories. Here is a wiki quote about Progressive Creationism:

From a scientific perspective, Robert Jastrow addresses a problem with this model in that, “This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control.” [14]

Reference: Progressive creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems there is still a hard disconnect from what we know to be the case from science.

I have read some on the whole primordial soup I think its an interesting theory to contemplate. My problem with any of it is proving what is fact and what is just theory. I think we have a responsibility to not let someone or someones make a theory fact when it has little or no evidence... it completely defies the scientific method and caused the whole evolution vs creationism. That debate is causing a division that hurts rather than helps the whole field of science. We cant prove any of it and we are barely touching on the marvels of what God has created.

It seems like you support the scientific method here. If you are in support of the scientific method, than doesn't that mean it should be applied for all cases ?

So many people from many cultures and walks of life have claimed to have seen UFO's.. I would never say that something didnt exist just because I hadnt seen it.. there are many things in this world I havent seen that others have seen and how ignorant I would be if I thought I knew everything. Imagine the first time the Native Americans saw a viking ship.. I bet that story was unbelievable to other tribes as the tale was carried on.

The vast majority of reports of UFO's have been discredited. Why would you want to build your beliefs on a shaky foundation ? On the other hand, as I showed in the link, there is some interesting science around how the molecules which evolved to life originated. Molecules from terrestial sources are possible.

Anyways.. Im open for discussion and no one knows me well enough here to claim that I cannot be open for anything "scientific"because I believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. To me they are one and the same.

I am not suggesting that you cannot be open for anything scientific. But is literal interpretation and science one and the same ? It seems to me that they are very different. And that is why they so often wind up at different end points.

I personally look to religion to give guidance in areas such as ethics and morals. I look to science and engineering to give me direction on how to build better cars, and clean water and artifical organs. And figuring out how the universe started and what is inside the atom is probably closer to the science than the religion in terms of the tools needed for accurate description.

I refuse to let science merely be a means and method to disprove my God. I instead look at science to prove that He is real.

I think we might have some agreement here. As I mentioned to you earlier, I believe in G-d. So I do not see any conflict between religion and science. But if they disagree, I need to take a hard look at why. And there are no "sacred cows".

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Nice voice.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Avi

Hi FS, after your post, I just read a little about these theories. Here is a wiki quote about Progressive Creationism:



It seems there is still a hard disconnect from what we know to be the case from science.




It seems like you support the scientific method here. If you are in support of the scientific method, than doesn't that mean it should be applied for all cases ?



The vast majority of reports of UFO's have been discredited. Why would you want to build your beliefs on a shaky foundation ? On the other hand, as I showed in the link, there is some interesting science around how the molecules which evolved to life originated. Molecules from terrestial sources are possible.





I am not suggesting that you cannot be open for anything scientific. But is literal interpretation and science one and the same ? It seems to me that they are very different. And that is why they so often wind up at different end points.

I personally look to religion to give guidance in areas such as ethics and morals. I look to science and engineering to give me direction on how to build better cars, and clean water and artifical organs. And figuring out how the universe started and what is inside the atom is probably closer to the science than the religion in terms of the tools needed for accurate description.




I think we might have some agreement here. As I mentioned to you earlier, I believe in G-d. So I do not see any conflict between religion and science. But if they disagree, I need to take a hard look at why. And there are no "sacred cows".

Avi, the Dalai Lama has been famously quoted as saying that, if science and Buddhism conflict, Buddhism would need to examine its beliefs. He has always been a strong advocate of the 2 working together and the result has been neuroscientists researching the effect on the brain of meditative practices. Theoretically, there is no reason that science and religion cannot work interactively to creatively influence each other if approached objectively. Of course, it's only a 2-way street if neuroscientists are willing to alter their "sacred" beliefs based on the evidence relative to the issue of mind and consciousness. I am not too sure they have thusfar been willing to do so. earl