Josiah takes on Science

[CanadianHippie]

I second that!!

Third!

Now the big question, do you learn about fucks before or after meth?

[formergothardite]

It is a good thing he works for his dad, if he ever tries to get another job and they google him and come up with this stuff, it could put a damper on him getting hired. Who wants to hire a guy who would stone people and is okay with slavery? I don't know what he does with Boy Scouts, but I know I wouldn't want my kid to be learning anything from a guy like this.

[Buzzard]

From his other post about science:

We need to take Science out of the cloud, and place it firm on the rock of Christ and the Gospel.

So we are supposed to take a 19 year old's interpretation of a book that is so vague most people can't agree with what it is really saying over proven facts. Right.

Is he really 19? And who the fuck nominated him family genius?

[Aurora]

This made me laugh and laugh and laugh. :clap:

Me too. Awesome autocorrect fail.

(Why didn't MY parents send me to a realms tool? THAT's why I never learned real meth!)

[formergothardite]

My school didn't teach about fucks or real meth. Only the fake kind. I missed out so much.

[debrand]

As we progressed in our conversation with JosiahW, I couldn't help feeling sad. The same boy from a different background might have been attending college to learn to be a doctor or lawyer. Instead, he is part of a family that have discouraged critical thought and intellictual growth.

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts.

There are many Christian scientists who accept evolution and still retain faith in the divinity of Jesus.

Josiah's problem is that facts contradict his interpretation of the bible. Instead of looking at his parents beliefs and perhaps coming to the conclusion that they might be wrong, he turns off his brain. What he doesn't want to face is that his parents aren't infalliable and that they are wrong.

[

[debrand]

If JosiahW reads this I have something to ask your friend. How the hell do you know what is going on in other people's minds? Are you psychic? I am not a Christian.

A friend of mine phrased it well:

When non-beleivers see a scientist who affirms God in every area of his life BUT science, they perceive him as a hypocrite and the Bible as unreliable

I am going to give you an actual nonbeliever's perspective. I do NOT care about the personal life of scientists. They are under no obligation to serve as any type of witness or example of their faith to me.

[Lillian]

Which Josiah is this? Not the Duggar kid, right?

[Boogalou]

Which Josiah is this? Not the Duggar kid, right?

No (even though that is what I thought at first). His blog is http://www.biblicalbeginnings.com/

[doggie]

the guy is a fruitcake checking is blog and about the alien turkey.

[formergothardite]

I think the turkey post is supposed to be funny, but his jokes never come out that way. They just come out creepy.

[doggie]

I think the turkey post is supposed to be funny, but his jokes never come out that way. They just come out creepy.

if not he is in trouble. first time I looked at his blog and was liek what the hell?

[thoughtful]

Who else wants Meow139's auto-corrects to be post-count tags? Come on, I want to be a "Go to a real school, where you can learn about fucks"! :dance:

They really should be sent to Damn You, Autocorrect.

[Conuly]

If we see the evidence in Science, and interpret the facts contrary in any way to God's plain and clear teaching in His Holy Word, than we have come up with a faulty conclusion. We must rewrite our thesis to line up with God's Word.

Yes, it's simply not possible that you just misunderstood God's Word.

Sheesh, billions of Christians can't all agree on exactly what the Bible says or what is meant by "being Christian", but he thinks it's possible that it's his senses and facts that are wrong instead of his reading of his holy book? Even if we accept the premise that God wrote the Bible, he gave us senses and the ability to reason first! Six days of creation, one day to rest, and none of those days is "And on this day God wrote the Bible". Obviously the Bible came after humanity, and part and parcel with humanity is the ability to think and use that newfangled logic stuff.

When non-beleivers see a scientist who affirms God in every area of his life BUT science, they perceive him as a hypocrite and the Bible as unreliable

There are a lot of Christians whom I think are massive hypocrites... a fact that's all the more sad when you consider how much Jesus said on the very topic of hypocrisy! However, I think that because of what they do, not because of what they think scientifically.

Calling yourself Christian while going around judging everybody you can see? Hypocrite. Hating the poor? Hypocrite. Talking about "family values" while secretly frequenting hookers, gay or otherwise? Distasteful hypocrite. Judging others, hating the poor, amassing riches on earth, and indulging in prostitutes while claiming otherwise? Okay, that's really funny, but still - big ol' hypocrite!

Calling yourself Christian while trusting the evidence of your God-given senses and your God-given critical thinking skills? I'm perfectly okay with that! Interpreting the Bible metaphorically? A-okay! Indeed, trying to interpret the Bible literally AND be a scientist is more likely to cause me to trust your very sanity. Talk about a foolish consistency!

But it's fascinating how he thinks that all us non-believers are so invested in Christian thought processes. Until Christians make it my business (usually by running for office), I honestly can't be bothered to care.

[doggie]

Yes, it's simply not possible that you just misunderstood God's Word.

Sheesh, billions of Christians can't all agree on exactly what the Bible says or what is meant by "being Christian", but he thinks it's possible that it's his senses and facts that are wrong instead of his reading of his holy book? Even if we accept the premise that God wrote the Bible, he gave us senses and the ability to reason first! Six days of creation, one day to rest, and none of those days is "And on this day God wrote the Bible". Obviously the Bible came after humanity, and part and parcel with humanity is the ability to think and use that newfangled logic stuff.

the world is full if christians who know exactly what the bible means. but of course none can agree with each other. hell they can't even agree what version of the bible. I guess the bible is jsut too easy to understand and these things don't matter.

[debrand]

I don't think that this is really about his interpretation of the Bible but about his parents' interpretation.

By the way, on his sidebar he has a link to the Bayly Brothers.

[cindyluvs24]

Just read his blog. Seems he and his family spent Christmas dinner checking out something abnormal shoved up the turkey's a$$. Then he actually admits he ate it!!! And they object to gays????? And what's with the faux Latin "Scripturae" Get over yourself, please.

[formergothardite]

A lot of the fundies use Latin on their blogs. It gives the appearance of being an intellectual when they are actually all fairly shallow. It is all about looks with fundies.

[VodouDoll]

This actually explains a lot about why he was completly incapable of any sort of logical debate. Here is some of his views on Science:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, logic and reality.

What? Reality is a presupposition on par with the presupposition "Everything in the KJV Bible is literally true?"

That's bizarre.

[defrauding]

He's not very bright, boy howdy.

Second, I have often looked back to a principle I was taught, that Science is in a box, and you cannot mix it with Science, Religion, Politics or anything else.

Yes, mixing science with science can produce all sorts of horrible things -- like more science!

[Aurora]

He's not very bright, boy howdy.

Yes, mixing science with science can produce all sorts of horrible things -- like more science!

I do not like science in a box

I do not like science with a fox

I do not like science in a house

I do not like science with a mouse...

[defrauding]

I do not like science in a box

I do not like science with a fox

I do not like science in a house

I do not like science with a mouse...

1: Cut a hole in the box

2: Science goes in that box

3: Make him open the box

And that's the way you do it...

[clarinetpower]

My husband's family came from England. They were Puritans, and emigrated to the US in 1631. Many of them were involved with the founding fathers of this nation--one woman was married to Ethan Allen, one man was in the Continental Congress in 1777 and later became Governor of Georgia. Later generations spawned Louisa May Alcott (my kids are related!!!) and hung out with Thoreau and Emerson (though he later converted to Catholicism, and actually became a prolific Theologian). They were all Christians. In fact, I'm guessing Dougie would be very envious of my husband and children's family tree.

When they came to the US, the family split into 3 branches, all with different SPELLINGS of the name.

I've done some internet research back to the town where they originally came from, and there are quite a few documents online. Some are typed in, some are scanned. In the very same family, over several generations, there are again SEVERAL SPELLINGS of the name, and many illiterate members who signed with an X. Many of these documents go back long prior to 1611.

Now tell me this, if the same family, who apparently all knew each other at one time or another, could not agree on how to spell their own name, how, pray tell, can we be absolutely positive that the order of the Creation happened exactly as it was written in the Bible, before any human foot touched the earth, and long, long before written documentation?

God gave us his Word, yes, but we had to figure out how to write it down. And guess what? We make mistakes. A lot of mistakes, and often--every single day, in fact. And God gave us brains and abilities to discover on our own--and what we may discover is that He didn't do it just how Joeus Blowus wrote it down on the stone tablet in 53 BC. Surprise, surprise.

Josiah, your argument just doesn't hold.

*BTW, I really do think he's still lurking, but has either hidden his status, or entered as a guest. Come on, Josiah. Step up to the plate. Face the music. Come to Jesus. Dare ya.

[Swamptribe]

I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

Facts may be neutral by their nature, but they are also indisputable. Just look the word up in the dictionary for goddesses sake. Facts are concrete, not objective. Opinions are objective. A fact is not an opinion, though, some can base their opinions on their interpretation of available facts.

What's more fun than auto-correct, running something through the bablefish translator and seeing how it gets butchered:)

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should start a thread on how to debate in general. The fundie lurkers might find it helpful.

[DarkAnts]

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted.

Hummm..... I am pretty sure that everyone would agree that if you drink enough rat poison then you will die. Everyone will also agree that when you put water into a working freezer, it becomes solid. If you leave food out too long then it becomes rancid. A girl is different from a boy. The list goes on and on. Facts can be proven.

Now, if you want to talk about theories then you might be on to something. But, with a theory, you need to say that you dont agree with the evidence. For instance, with the whole date of the earth thing. We use different kinds of dating to determine the age of rocks. You can say that you dont agree with the theory that was developed for that method. But, if you do then please be prepared to give me a valid answer. The whole C13 dating argument wont fly with me. They have improved the testing method and instrumentation used since fundies started to use that argument.