Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 09:33pm PT
|
they must have concluded (correctly) that I was attracted to, and intimately familiar with, every distraction in town.
Ha!
One of my partners and I were spending a lazy day on the Apron once. He was a pretty bright guy - college degrees. I was starting up Flakey Foont when some guy comes by to survey us for a paper on climbing he was doing. We were kinda trapped, so we played along.
First question: how has climbing affected your career choices?
My partner: that's easy. I don't have a career.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 11:05pm PT
|
Listening to you people is great! A warm fuzzy feeling bubbles up an inner voice reminding me, "you need more education". I wish you all were around in my adolescent days instead of the one fleeting voice I heard from an offen not seen uncle who persisted with, "you better get your butt in college or else your gonna have to work for a living!". Lol. Only wish I understood that then..
Question for you guys. If you can, how would you precive yourselves with all the education you've received, as being a loving human being, compared to if you never went beyond 12th grade? Do you think a higher amount of education has a desirable effect on the quantity or quality of love?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 11:07pm PT
|
As soon as one sees independent objects, makes distinctions about “this” and “that,” when one evaluates objects (good, bad, right, wrong, appropriate, etc.), then one automatically gets expelled from paradise of experiencing the perfection and completion of Reality.
MikeL, that's one of the coolest things I've heard you write:)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 11:19pm PT
|
You realize blue, that original sin was not originally a Christian doctrine
Ok. And prolly my using "original sin" was wrong. I meant solely to be pointing at Genesis where after God created the universe, then man. Where God set man free, but with the laying down of one law. And when man breaks the law, well there's a price to be paid..
It seems a bit scientific to me.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 11:43pm PT
|
Question for you guys. If you can, how would you precive yourselves with all the education you've received, as being a loving human being, compared to if you never went beyond 12th grade? Do you think a higher amount of education has a desirable effect on the quantity or quality of love?
Not sure what you are asking, but if you aren't always looking for answers, life gets dull quick. An education gets you in the habit.
For me, understanding where concepts originate certainly helps in what is perhaps a more loving relationship with others. The reverse side is hate inspired by ignorance.
There is a point at which you are as well off on your own, but for most people, 12th grade isn't the point.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 07:33am PT
|
Theology can be wonderful. It has a great academic tradition and involves asking questions and looking for answers. If theologists come up with an experimental branch it will be just like science.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 08:07am PT
|
Lorenzo: if you aren't always looking for answers, life gets dull quick.
You are, of course, speaking for yourself—and about yourself.
An education is a form of institutionalization. It presents paradigms.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:51am PT
|
I’d be just a bit hesitant to use the word “overwhelming.” It almost sounds like the word, “proof.” I like “alternative view,” though.
I'm sorry that I can't stay updated on this thread.
Mike posted the above quote a few pages back. For a guy who is so skeptical about damn near everything, he still clings to the one area where there is the least evidence: spiritualism. He, like many of the rest, doesn't post what his religion or belief is. I wonder about that, but from his posts, I assume he is a Buddhist.
The point is, he is a spiritualist, and every bit of scientific proof is suspect in his eyes. Yes, there is conflict in science. It wouldn't work without it. However there are certain areas of knowledge that are a certainty. I work such areas.
The rock evidence IS overwhelming. It provides a clear view of how life changed over time. In my work, the mechanisms of evolution are not that important. Guys like me use the fossil record to date rocks and figure out depositional environments. It is the easiest way, and if you are careful, precise. The geology of the midcontinent area has so many millions of holes drilled in it that there are very few surprises. It is understood with great accuracy. You will not find the Viola overlying the Herrington unless you are looking at a thrust fault, and those are, by now, quite well known.
Many of you live in California, home to a lot of igneous rock. If you had grown up where I did, fossils are literally everywhere. I can take you by the hand and show you a carboniferous sea, and you can fill your pockets with brachiopods and crinoid stems in 15 minutes.
There is a rock layer in central Kansas that is a thin limestone. The rock is interesting because it is an oyster bed. It is literally filled with perfectly detailed oyster shell impressions. Pretty stuff. The kind of rock that you take a piece of and use for a paper weight. An oyster bed in Kansas? Doesn't that surprise any of you?
So what can you infer from the presence of these fossils? First, the depositional environment. Both the host rock and the fossils are shallow marine. The water depth was perhaps 15 feet deep or less. Kansas has been submerged hundreds of times. There are perfect cycles of high and low stands of sea level which you can correlate with well data for hundreds of miles. They outcrop in the eastern part of the state. Elsewhere, you drill through them at some depth.
I can take you to a place where ammonites are 3 feet in diameter. They are huge. The host rock is Cretaceous. Ammonites are extinct, but a close relative is the Nautilus. They are huge spiral fossils dug up when a dam was built along the Red River. Everyone around here has seen them propping open doors or something. They aren't even rare, except to that particular layer of rock.
There are fossils all over the place in the area where I grew up. No human skeleton fossil has been found. EVER. No human tool has been found in these rocks. EVER. You can broaden your search around the world and see that no human or primate skeleton has EVER been found in rocks older than Paleogene, and they looked nothing like humans. No HUMAN (H. Sapiens) fossil has EVER been found that is older than 200,000 years, although fossil skeletons of close relatives (H Erectus) have been found that date to 2.5 million years. More primitive species date back to several million years.
There is a lot of debate regarding who lived when and where. That is not settled science. The dates are important if you want to figure out the evolution of man, but to a guy like me, who works with extremely old rocks, they all showed up yesterday in geologic time.
The evidence is directly opposed to the biblical account of creation. DIRECTLY OPPOSED.
The biblical account of creation is a fairly tale. There is no other way to put it. I'm sorry if this steps on the toes of some of you, but there is no alternative explanation.
The various origin stories from different religions is an interesting topic, however it is of no use to me. If I picked my drilling locations by prayer, even the most religious investor wouldn't put down a penny. It is farce, even in their eyes, when it comes to putting their money down on the table, and I know a lot of church going money men.
I just checked, and there is actually a wiki page for Oklahoman Paleontology. It is interesting. A good summary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology_in_Oklahoma
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
PS Be sure to check out the latest in astrotheology!
Ok, but before you do, it might be best to read some prior work for grounding.
I would suggest Isaac Newton on theology and astrology ( his stuff on alchemy and 'chymistry' is also a fun read) Newton wrote more pages on these subjects than is in the Principia. Of special note were his antitrinitarian writings, which concept he called idolatry and late forgeries. Reading his complete work ( some just now being published ) and going through the books in his personal library, gives a good grounding in the evolution of science.
Among the 1752 books with identifiable titles on this list[his library], no less than 477 (27.2%) were on the subject of theology, 169 (9.6%) on alchemy, 126 (7.2%) on mathematics, 52 (3.0%) on physics and only 33 (1.9%) on astronomy. Surprisingly, Newton’s books on the disciplines on which his scientific fame rests amount to no more than 12% of his library
His library did contain four books on astrology. His contempt for the discipline was mainly on the poor correlation with known observations compared to the method of casting horoscopes.
Particularly fun is the argument in texts between Newton and Leibnitz on the role of God in the mechanics of the working universe.
And no discussion of any form of astrology is complete without studying the astrological thoughts of Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus, who all cast horoscopes for their patrons.
One of Brahe and Copernicus's purposes for their astronomical tables was to cast better horoscopes.
Kepler was privately contemptuous of Astrology in his later years, but it's where his paycheck was grounded.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:22am PT
|
The biblical account of creation is a fairly tale.
Not really: it's a metaphorical description of creation (the beginning) in mythopoetic language that describes humanity's situation and place in the cosmos. It's filled with wisdom in what are really two stories in relation to each other.
It can be appreciated by scientist and theologian alike, as I'm sure you can appreciate the creation mosaic in the narthex at San Marco. I've never heard any body standing underneath it declaring "Hey, that's not true!"
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 11:31am PT
|
I would suggest Isaac Newton on theology and astrology ( his stuff on alchemy and 'chymistry' is also a fun read) Newton wrote more pages on these subjects than is in the Principia. Of special note were his antitrinitarian writings, which concept he called idolatry and late forgeries. Reading his complete work ( some just now being published ) and going through the books in his personal library, gives a good grounding in the evolution of science.
You have to be careful when you draw conclusions like this. You are assuming that he could have had more physics books than astrology books.
What you need to be careful of if this: Perhaps there were few physics books at the time, while there were more theology books. You need to know what was available to him to draw a conclusion.
A similar thing happened with the study of tornadoes. About the time of telephones and trained observers, the number of annual tornadoes skyrocketed. Was it because there were more tornadoes, or was it because it was easier to keep track of them. It didn't take much work to show that it was the latter.
And Paul, it has nothing to do with context or belief. The factual evidence shows that the bibilical creation narrative is indeed a fairy tale.
I could show that Permian oyster bed in Kansas to BB, and he might say that it is evidence of the great flood. This isn't so. It is 200 million years old. What it shows, is that Kansas was underwater at the time of deposition, and that oysters are a very old species, unlike us. The fossil record shows that we are a very young species.
Fossils are physical evidence of animals and plants that lived a LONG time ago. It isn't a matter of paradigm or mythology. They are laying around, and any of you could pick them up and learn something from them.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 11:32am PT
|
Does more education make a person a more compassionate human being? Some of the most loving human beings I've known were totally illiterate and some of the most selfish and mean spirited were highly educated. Some of the most callous and cruel people I've met were in poor countries and some of the most generous and helpful from the richest and most educated countries.
What can be said for certain however, is that kind hearted people with a good education have the potential to be the most effective in the world at creating compassionate circumstances for the less fortunate. While inspirational to those in the small circle who know them, illiterate people have no power and are thus subject to exploitation by the better educated with no conscience. More education always means less exploitation.
The question often debated on this thread is how to create a more compassionate person? Should we try to do it through religion, through science education, through moral education? If moral education, then where should moral ideas come from? One of the things I most blame sectarian religious leaders for is their inability to look beyond their own boundaries to try to create a set of universal ethical values that could be taught to children in schools. I think it could be done and it is done in other countries.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 11:57am PT
|
Base, Genesis says God created oysters before man. If it was a billion years before man I'm good with that. Your the one that seems to be hung up on the time scale as to the meaning of "in a day"? Don't you find it a bit of a coincidence in which Genesis lays out the order the universe came to be? It's verbatim to what the evolutionist say. Except maybe one thing, that God created light before He created Suns. Why don't you argue how this is scientifically incorrect? Or is it?? ; )
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:10pm PT
|
God did not create light.
He is light manefestated itself as his impersonal form.
For the impersonalists he appears a light.
God is never ever created ........
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:13pm PT
|
Base:
Would the word “overwhelming” signal “no doubt” for you? Does it mean surety and certainty? Does it have anything to do with statistics or a statistic? Do you understand the differences I’m pointing out?
Ad hominems won’t help you in any argument unless you mean to make an emotional one. What I am or not has nothing to do with a valid argument. (I don’t understand how you can be so competent in your field but not understand these basics.)
I have posted more than once (and i’m sure boringly) what I make of any belief. (Perhaps as you note, you’re not reading very much.) There is no particular religion that I honor enough to call my own.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:22pm PT
|
The biblical account of creation is a fairly tale
Not really: it's a metaphorical description of creation (the beginning) in mythopoetic language that describes humanity's situation and place in the cosmos. It's filled with wisdom in what are really two stories in relation to each other.
This is a nice way to look at it from a modern perspective, but the fact remains that when Genesis was written and for some thousands of years afterward, there was nothing metaphorical about it; it was taken as revealed truth, the only game in town, and anyone who questioned or doubted it was in for a mythopoetic beatdown.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:49pm PT
|
And Paul, it has nothing to do with context or belief. The factual evidence shows that the bibilical creation narrative is indeed a fairy tale.
Insofar as a fairy tale is primarily an entertainment, Genesis is not. The bible has examples of dream imagery as metaphor that then demands interpretation. Daniel's dream for instance. If I say so and so runs so fast he's a deer, you don't respond by saying that's not factual. I think there's a problem here regarding what a metaphor is and what is meant by wisdom in the context of metaphor. Certainly the gods of ancient Greece were seen by many in the period as simply metaphor. Mythopoetic language is just that, it lends meaning to what is. You can describe the many types of igneous rock, and that's fine, but we are only left with description for which meaning seems to be abandoned for the sake of description's efficacy.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 01:28pm PT
|
This is a nice way to look at it from a modern perspective, but the fact remains that when Genesis was written and for some thousands of years afterward, there was nothing metaphorical about it; it was taken as revealed truth, the only game in town, and anyone who questioned or doubted it was in for a mythopoetic beatdown.
unlike modern science, of course which until this decade denied Neanderthals and modern humans were the same species and could mate, or that evolution existed, before that. A hundred and fifty years ago, that was also the only game in town and revealed truth.
If you want to talk about what the perspective of the bible was Thousands of years ago, you need to come up with the perspective of science from more than a thousand, or even a hundred, years ago.
Some of those stories are pre Iron Age. The Eden story was pre Bronze Age. I struggle to see how you could see it as anything but metaphor. What was science like then? Scientists were still talking about the four humors only 400 years ago. George Washington died being bled as part of the best medicine of the age. When did the aether cease to exist as truth?
Is the list of subatomic particles in the universe as listed in my Freshman physics books in 1966 metaphor or truth? It's a lot different than in the journals four years later. A LOT different.
It's only a fair comparison if both are in the same time frame. I submit the Genesis creation story was pretty good cosmology in 1700 BC. They got the order mostly right.
As to mythopoetic, I'm not sure you got the right word.
Perhaps you mean mythopoeic.
|
|
cintune
climber
Bruce Berry's Econoline Van
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 02:30pm PT
|
They're synonomous, actually, but whatever you prefer.
Adjective: Being a creative interpretation.
And sure, given the observational tools at hand, it was a decent effort at primitive cosmology:
But the difference came in when challenging it led to dire consequences:
Not something your textbook authors need to worry about much.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!