Rock Climbing : Comments
Comments by m_hurley (6)
Article: Alpinist Magazine to Suspend Operations
Science? "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works."(1)
What are you, Richard Dawkins? Do you think that, since you personally believe that the world is limited to "natural, physical forces," based on your own ability to reason and your own observations, that anyone who believes something else is "ignorant"?
Science, as described above, is an "effort", and not an infallible source of truth. Sure, you can appeal to it as a means of validation for your own perception of truth. But it all comes down to presupposition and hypothesis. And "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."(2)
(1) Wikipedia
(2) Psalms 19:1
P.S. I'm glad you recognize that folks are entitled to their opinions. And you thought HE was ignorant....
Science? "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works."(1)
What are you, Richard Dawkins? Do you think that, since you personally believe that the world is limited to "natural, physical forces," based on your own ability to reason and your own observations, that anyone who believes something else is "ignorant"?
Science, as described above, is an "effort", and not an infallible source of truth. Sure, you can appeal to it as a means of validation for your own perception of truth. But it all comes down to presupposition and hypothesis. And "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."(2)
(1) Wikipedia
(2) Psalms 19:1
P.S. I'm glad you recognize that folks are entitled to their opinions. And you thought HE was ignorant....
Article: Alpinist Magazine to Suspend Operations
Johnny,
Thank you for your insight. I believe I am in agreement with you to a certain extent. However, as far as the extended effects of and the relationship between humans and the climate change (if indeed it can be called that), I may, as you said, differ.
And I am well aware that such persons as myself (although you seem to have a rather flawed view of my position...nothing new there) open themselves to ridicule by participating in discussions of a scientific nature. The biblical presupposition has been frantically buried in a contrived pile of scientific reasoning.
<sarcasm>We may not know everything about the world, but we must not admit the possibility that it could have come about through the biblical sequence of events. Such a story offends and constricts our great minds and expansive moral and societal pretentions!!!</sarcasm>
veilnab,
"Contempt is a well-recognized defensive reaction." - I.A. Richard
I think that says it all. =p
Johnny,
Thank you for your insight. I believe I am in agreement with you to a certain extent. However, as far as the extended effects of and the relationship between humans and the climate change (if indeed it can be called that), I may, as you said, differ.
And I am well aware that such persons as myself (although you seem to have a rather flawed view of my position...nothing new there) open themselves to ridicule by participating in discussions of a scientific nature. The biblical presupposition has been frantically buried in a contrived pile of scientific reasoning.
<sarcasm>We may not know everything about the world, but we must not admit the possibility that it could have come about through the biblical sequence of events. Such a story offends and constricts our great minds and expansive moral and societal pretentions!!!</sarcasm>
veilnab,
"Contempt is a well-recognized defensive reaction." - I.A. Richard
I think that says it all. =p
Article: Alpinist Magazine to Suspend Operations
Michael,
The only reason I went to Wikipedia for a definition is for standardization purposes, as I knew that definition was one generally agreed upon by those with whom I've discussed such matters. And I have read what scientists have said about global warming. It sounds like you admit there are "scientists" who dispute global warming? If so, you are much more permissive than many I've debated with, who would contend that anyone who doesn't adhere to what they perceive to be "the consensus" is, by default, not a part of "the scientific community". But the fact is, people will believe what they want to believe, and the "consensus" about global warming to which you refer may simply be a product of the spirit of the age (reflected and magnified, of course, by the media). 100 years from now, scientists may be laughing at they hype over global warming we now see.
The amount of ozone in the ozone layer fluctuates naturally by about 50%. That's ten times the amount of the total damage caused by chlorofluorocarbons. But, to hear it from most people, they'd say there's SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it's going to kill us all.
Consider that, in the past, people have seriously thought we were entering another ice age. Clearly, weather patterns, viewed in such small segments as a human lifespan, can be misleading.
And, of course, coming from a Christian perspective, as I do, I come to these conclusions more readily. Biased? You bet. The only way science progresses is through bias and imagination.
Johnny,
I hope you don't really view our dialogue as "bickering". That's pretty low. As far as the magazine goes, some people may appreciate certain style and content where others don't.
Michael,
The only reason I went to Wikipedia for a definition is for standardization purposes, as I knew that definition was one generally agreed upon by those with whom I've discussed such matters. And I have read what scientists have said about global warming. It sounds like you admit there are "scientists" who dispute global warming? If so, you are much more permissive than many I've debated with, who would contend that anyone who doesn't adhere to what they perceive to be "the consensus" is, by default, not a part of "the scientific community". But the fact is, people will believe what they want to believe, and the "consensus" about global warming to which you refer may simply be a product of the spirit of the age (reflected and magnified, of course, by the media). 100 years from now, scientists may be laughing at they hype over global warming we now see.
The amount of ozone in the ozone layer fluctuates naturally by about 50%. That's ten times the amount of the total damage caused by chlorofluorocarbons. But, to hear it from most people, they'd say there's SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it's going to kill us all.
Consider that, in the past, people have seriously thought we were entering another ice age. Clearly, weather patterns, viewed in such small segments as a human lifespan, can be misleading.
And, of course, coming from a Christian perspective, as I do, I come to these conclusions more readily. Biased? You bet. The only way science progresses is through bias and imagination.
Johnny,
I hope you don't really view our dialogue as "bickering". That's pretty low. As far as the magazine goes, some people may appreciate certain style and content where others don't.
Article: Alpinist Magazine to Suspend Operations
vertical planar,
I like your train of thought. And this really doesn't have much to do with the article. I apologize. But it does have to do with climbing, as your purpose and attitude in climbing depends on your view and understanding of the world, no?
Do you think there's any chance of the mag coming back later?
vertical planar,
I like your train of thought. And this really doesn't have much to do with the article. I apologize. But it does have to do with climbing, as your purpose and attitude in climbing depends on your view and understanding of the world, no?
Do you think there's any chance of the mag coming back later?
Article: Alpinist Magazine to Suspend Operations
Another quick note for you, vertical planar. Are you aware that many of the most revealing and breakthrough scientific discoveries and theories have been effected by scientists (yes, they were scientists) who held the Christian worldview as their starting point, or base assumption? It is only in recent years that the view has come to be regarded as a hindrance to further discovery in the field of science. So, I don't see that there should be any discredit to the Christian hypothesis. And I don't agree that the "attempt to describe the world" should NECESSARILY be separated from it. I am not saying it may not be attempted APART from it, just that it may be attempted THROUGH without a necessary compromise of validity. Unfortunately, this is the sort of impertinent presupposition and restriction on which the "scientific consensus" seems to have set their camp. Really, when it comes down to it, intelligent design could be just as valid a hypothesis for the ORIGIN of life as any other prominent atheists have to offer. Other, more intelligent life forms that themselves originated through strictly evolutionary means? Molecules piggybacking crystals? Seriously, intelligent design doesn't necessarily rule out the evolution of the species (even though my personal views do), but JUST their origin. But still it is anathema! Anyways, nice talking with you...
Another quick note for you, vertical planar. Are you aware that many of the most revealing and breakthrough scientific discoveries and theories have been effected by scientists (yes, they were scientists) who held the Christian worldview as their starting point, or base assumption? It is only in recent years that the view has come to be regarded as a hindrance to further discovery in the field of science. So, I don't see that there should be any discredit to the Christian hypothesis. And I don't agree that the "attempt to describe the world" should NECESSARILY be separated from it. I am not saying it may not be attempted APART from it, just that it may be attempted THROUGH without a necessary compromise of validity. Unfortunately, this is the sort of impertinent presupposition and restriction on which the "scientific consensus" seems to have set their camp. Really, when it comes down to it, intelligent design could be just as valid a hypothesis for the ORIGIN of life as any other prominent atheists have to offer. Other, more intelligent life forms that themselves originated through strictly evolutionary means? Molecules piggybacking crystals? Seriously, intelligent design doesn't necessarily rule out the evolution of the species (even though my personal views do), but JUST their origin. But still it is anathema! Anyways, nice talking with you...
Article: Alpinist Magazine to Suspend Operations
Sorry.
Sorry.
