Hank49
Contributor
Midnight Star:
Actually Mike, I think I fit more into the camp you just started. Don't give up.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Actually Mike, I think I fit more into the camp you just started. Don't give up.
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
H2Andy:
You haven't replied to my question about asking about what was wrong with the historicity and astronomical model put forth in the article. If it's "claptrap" (I believe this thread has more occurences of the word "claptrap" than any other thread ever).
You dismiss it as "crap". I'd like to hear your reasons why the astronomical model wouldn't account for the observed phenomena...what is scientifically wrong with what was said, what was historically wrong with what was said?
If you are going to dismiss an article as unscientific then it should be easy for you to show me where the gaping holes are.
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
From the article's reviews:
"About 99.9% of the Star of Bethlehem stuff is nutty, but this isn't that. It's well-researched and reasonable."
Ronald A. Schorn, Ph.D.
Schorn founded and served as Chief of the Planetary Astronomy department at NASA and was Technical Editor of Sky & Telescope magazine. He is the author of Planetary Astronomy.
"Your wide-ranging and insightful scholarship in the Scriptures and in the parallel historical record from Josephus, Tacitus and the rest! Your command of Kepler's clock!!... My hat is off to you."
Gerard Piel, Ph.D.
Former Publisher and Editor, Scientific American magazine
Piel (1915-2004) was the holder of over twenty honorary doctorates. He published and edited Scientific American for nearly four decades, and served as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A prolific writer, his last book is The Age of Science: What Scientists Learned in the Twentieth Century.
But, if you say it's crap after a 20 minute scan...guess it's total bunk.
"About 99.9% of the Star of Bethlehem stuff is nutty, but this isn't that. It's well-researched and reasonable."
Ronald A. Schorn, Ph.D.
Schorn founded and served as Chief of the Planetary Astronomy department at NASA and was Technical Editor of Sky & Telescope magazine. He is the author of Planetary Astronomy.
"Your wide-ranging and insightful scholarship in the Scriptures and in the parallel historical record from Josephus, Tacitus and the rest! Your command of Kepler's clock!!... My hat is off to you."
Gerard Piel, Ph.D.
Former Publisher and Editor, Scientific American magazine
Piel (1915-2004) was the holder of over twenty honorary doctorates. He published and edited Scientific American for nearly four decades, and served as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A prolific writer, his last book is The Age of Science: What Scientists Learned in the Twentieth Century.
But, if you say it's crap after a 20 minute scan...guess it's total bunk.
Midnight Star
Contributor
Thanks Hank! I'll build us a small campfire, and we can take a few moments to just sit and enjoy the stars. Then ... it's back to work.
-----
Mike.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I fear that I inroduced the term "claptrap" to this discussion, though a search indicates it is in common use in other treads.
Claptrap’s first appearance in print is in Nathan Bailey’s dictionary of 1721 and his definition pretty much tells the whole story: “A Clap Trap, a name given to the rant and rhimes that dramatick poets, to please the actors, let them get off with: as much as to say, a trap to catch a clap, by way of applause from the spectators at a play.”
Such rhetorical devices or acting flourishes were thought unworthy of the serious dramatist or thespian. A writer in The New-England Magazine in 1835, fulminating against the star system that was contributing to the decline of the modern drama, complained that in order to feed the performance of the lead actor, “The piece must abound in clap-traps”. Nor was the technique confined to the theatre itself: an article in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine in 1855 about a new play said that “All the clap-traps of the press were employed to draw an audience to the first representation.” And in 1867, back across the Atlantic in London, Thomas Wright wrote in Some Habits and Customs of the Working Classes that: “The Waggoner’s entertainment, of course, embraced the usual unauthenticated statistics, stock anecdotes, and pieces of clap-trap oratory of the professional teetotal lecturers.”
The word developed from a figurative theatrical device to encourage applause into a more general term for showy or insincere platitudes or mawkish sentimentality directed at the lowest common denominator of one’s audience. From there it was only a short step to the sense of talking nonsense or rubbish, though the older ideas are often still present.
Thalassamania in post 177:
Claptrap’s first appearance in print is in Nathan Bailey’s dictionary of 1721 and his definition pretty much tells the whole story: “A Clap Trap, a name given to the rant and rhimes that dramatick poets, to please the actors, let them get off with: as much as to say, a trap to catch a clap, by way of applause from the spectators at a play.”
Such rhetorical devices or acting flourishes were thought unworthy of the serious dramatist or thespian. A writer in The New-England Magazine in 1835, fulminating against the star system that was contributing to the decline of the modern drama, complained that in order to feed the performance of the lead actor, “The piece must abound in clap-traps”. Nor was the technique confined to the theatre itself: an article in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine in 1855 about a new play said that “All the clap-traps of the press were employed to draw an audience to the first representation.” And in 1867, back across the Atlantic in London, Thomas Wright wrote in Some Habits and Customs of the Working Classes that: “The Waggoner’s entertainment, of course, embraced the usual unauthenticated statistics, stock anecdotes, and pieces of clap-trap oratory of the professional teetotal lecturers.”
The word developed from a figurative theatrical device to encourage applause into a more general term for showy or insincere platitudes or mawkish sentimentality directed at the lowest common denominator of one’s audience. From there it was only a short step to the sense of talking nonsense or rubbish, though the older ideas are often still present.
Midnight Star
Contributor
Something interesting, and aside from theoretical physics ... I was reading some of the "genesis" summaries from other cultures on Wikipedia, and it's amazing how simular they all really are.
There's a base idea(s) of creation (then lots of other add ons that are unique to each culture, like snakes, clouds, etc.,.) that can be found various places within the bible in either an "abstract" or symbolic form. This leads me to believe that God does in fact exist, and is found within man, in spirit; thus the simularities, He is the common denominator. But, based on their differeing cultures and understanding at the moment, each "internalized" idea or presence, was represented slightly differently; the face of each, the face of religion - where man tries to put a shape, form and nature onto God. Each one having an unconscious idea, a small piece, but somehow loosing it in the conscious translation.
However, even the idea of tossing someone in a volcano to appease the gods, has a commonality: the mountain rumbled ... so there must be a greater spirit thats upset. So let's sacrifice a person. Why sacrifice a person? Let's make it a unwed girl. Why a virgin? The gods will be happy and leave us good will. Why purification in fire? It's strange, for instance they'd choose that out of the clear blue, as opposed to something else.
Though these are representations of how different men "understood" God (not consciously, but just did naturally those things), it doesn't account for, or include the diliberate "creation" of doctrines through plagaristic actions - the notion that pre-existing scriptures which are simply rewritten again, and again, rewording everything, makes it completely unique, gives ownership to the writer, and is inspired of God.
Also, I believe over time, each culture went away from the "internalized" ideas (unconscious guidings), and chose those ideas or ways that worked the most conviently for them ... thus turning towards free will, and personal choice; my unconscious mind (or conscience) tells me this is the right thing to do, but i'm not going to listen because my conscious mind is telling me it's either inconvient or not in my best interest.
-----
Mike.
There's a base idea(s) of creation (then lots of other add ons that are unique to each culture, like snakes, clouds, etc.,.) that can be found various places within the bible in either an "abstract" or symbolic form. This leads me to believe that God does in fact exist, and is found within man, in spirit; thus the simularities, He is the common denominator. But, based on their differeing cultures and understanding at the moment, each "internalized" idea or presence, was represented slightly differently; the face of each, the face of religion - where man tries to put a shape, form and nature onto God. Each one having an unconscious idea, a small piece, but somehow loosing it in the conscious translation.
However, even the idea of tossing someone in a volcano to appease the gods, has a commonality: the mountain rumbled ... so there must be a greater spirit thats upset. So let's sacrifice a person. Why sacrifice a person? Let's make it a unwed girl. Why a virgin? The gods will be happy and leave us good will. Why purification in fire? It's strange, for instance they'd choose that out of the clear blue, as opposed to something else.
Though these are representations of how different men "understood" God (not consciously, but just did naturally those things), it doesn't account for, or include the diliberate "creation" of doctrines through plagaristic actions - the notion that pre-existing scriptures which are simply rewritten again, and again, rewording everything, makes it completely unique, gives ownership to the writer, and is inspired of God.
Also, I believe over time, each culture went away from the "internalized" ideas (unconscious guidings), and chose those ideas or ways that worked the most conviently for them ... thus turning towards free will, and personal choice; my unconscious mind (or conscience) tells me this is the right thing to do, but i'm not going to listen because my conscious mind is telling me it's either inconvient or not in my best interest.
-----
Mike.
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
Thanks! That was a really cool reference. (It's funny, how you used it and then suddenly it was appearing in post after post...might make a good paper on the viral nature of words and patterns of speech).
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
There has to be something there. I've done a few searches and found "claptrap" to a very commonly used term coming from the science side of the discussion, so I must have "caught it" and then "spread it."bwerb:
I just read Larson's magic star presentation, and it's claptrap. It sets out to validate a preconceived superstitious belief, and, not surprisingly, it claims success. To quote Mencken's comment in another context, 'it's about as reliable as the Book of Mormon'.
Perhaps it was a weather balloon they saw.
Larson mentions moon and star worship, and that the old testament prescribes the death penalty for such things. Fundamentalist legislators and lobbyists have some serious work ahead of them.
MOREOVER THE MOON
Flourescent truant of heaven
draw us under...
Silver circular corpse
your decease infects us with unendurable ease
Coercive as a coma, frail as a bloom
innuendoes of your inverse dawn
suffuse the self
our every corpuscle become an elf.
(Mina Loy)
Perhaps it was a weather balloon they saw.
Larson mentions moon and star worship, and that the old testament prescribes the death penalty for such things. Fundamentalist legislators and lobbyists have some serious work ahead of them.
MOREOVER THE MOON
Flourescent truant of heaven
draw us under...
Silver circular corpse
your decease infects us with unendurable ease
Coercive as a coma, frail as a bloom
innuendoes of your inverse dawn
suffuse the self
our every corpuscle become an elf.
(Mina Loy)
Midnight Star
Contributor
Just a little bit on me...
For me, belief in all those "miracles" (or miracles in the bible) really had no bearing on my believing in God - they shouldn't. In fact, it really didn't then, or doesn't now come into play. Does perpetuating that knowledge (or disputing about it) really weigh more than actually doing the right thing by action: leading by example? To me, the answer was and still is no.
-----
Mike.
For me, belief in all those "miracles" (or miracles in the bible) really had no bearing on my believing in God - they shouldn't. In fact, it really didn't then, or doesn't now come into play. Does perpetuating that knowledge (or disputing about it) really weigh more than actually doing the right thing by action: leading by example? To me, the answer was and still is no.
-----
Mike.
- Status
Similar threads
