Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote: The virgin birth of Buddha, by the way, was added to his life sometime after Jesus was born. All earlier documentation made no mention of a virgin birth, and, by the way, his mother was not a virgin either.

The White Elephant Dream is older than Christianity,
also it is written down in ancient Chinese and Korean manuscripts before the introduction of Christianity.

The issue was the virgin birth, not the white elephant dream. I was quoting a professor of Buddhist Studies at one of the NY universities, who said that those early manuscripts made no mention of a virgin birth, just an unconventional conception in the case of Buddha, but that his mother was "married" for a long time before he was conceived, making it highly unlikely that she was a virgin given the prevailing culture of the time. I cannot check now, I am at work, will send the reference later.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The White Elephant Dream is older than Christianity,
also it is written down in ancient Chinese and Korean manuscripts before the introduction of Christianity.

The issue was the virgin birth, not the white elephant dream. I was quoting a professor of Buddhist Studies at one of the NY universities, who said that those early manuscripts made no mention of a virgin birth, just an unconventional conception in the case of Buddha, but that his mother was "married" for a long time before he was conceived, making it highly unlikely that she was a virgin given the prevailing culture of the time. I cannot check now, I am at work, will send the reference later.

Oh, I see.
You're right, the mother is not a virgin, however no paternal parent.

That being said, this story does pre-date Christianity, the mother not being a virgin none the less.

August wrote:Why don't you show me where I have given any inaccurate citations? And he did not give any citations, accurate or not, simply made a claim.

Anyhow, it seems that you wish to define what accurate citations mean, that being all of those that agree with evolution or whatever point of view you support.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you individually, just a general statement about those making "scientific claims" that I know are false to begin with. I'm sure it happens on the other side as well, with those misquoting scriptures or simply making blanket statements about religion with nothing to back it up. I can't speak for that...I can only identify erroneous statements about science when I see them. I'd really like to see anything stated as "fact" backed up with references as is done in other forums. It would eliminate the extra hurdle of debating with someone the validity of a statement before discussing the actual application of the statement to whatever end.

With regards to accurate citations, all I'm advocating is using primary literature or even in some cases secondary literature with references to primary literature. It doesn't even have anything to do with evolution, it's about properly backing up your statements, regardless of your field. The internet is not a valid source because people can write whatever they want on it, with no one there to check if it's accurate...I can look up a page that "proves" Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster exist, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right because it's on the internet. I'm tired of hearing peeople make statements like, "science has proven X couldn't happen" or "the Bible says that Y" and then providing no way to check the accuracy of their statement. It's either a result of laziness in not backing up your statements because it's too much extra work, or an inability to do so because the support one alludes to doesn't really exist. Either way, people need to back up their statements, myself included.

thereal wrote:

August wrote:Why don't you show me where I have given any inaccurate citations? And he did not give any citations, accurate or not, simply made a claim.

Anyhow, it seems that you wish to define what accurate citations mean, that being all of those that agree with evolution or whatever point of view you support.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you individually, just a general statement about those making "scientific claims" that I know are false to begin with. I'm sure it happens on the other side as well, with those misquoting scriptures or simply making blanket statements about religion with nothing to back it up. I can't speak for that...I can only identify erroneous statements about science when I see them. I'd really like to see anything stated as "fact" backed up with references as is done in other forums. It would eliminate the extra hurdle of debating with someone the validity of a statement before discussing the actual application of the statement to whatever end.

With regards to accurate citations, all I'm advocating is using primary literature or even in some cases secondary literature with references to primary literature. It doesn't even have anything to do with evolution, it's about properly backing up your statements, regardless of your field. The internet is not a valid source because people can write whatever they want on it, with no one there to check if it's accurate...I can look up a page that "proves" Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster exist, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right because it's on the internet. I'm tired of hearing peeople make statements like, "science has proven X couldn't happen" or "the Bible says that Y" and then providing no way to check the accuracy of their statement. It's either a result of laziness in not backing up your statements because it's too much extra work, or an inability to do so because the support one alludes to doesn't really exist. Either way, people need to back up their statements, myself included.

I agree, there is no excuse for not doing the research before making statements. It does, however, leave us in the dilemma that we often choose to believe that interpretation of primary research that best supports our presuppositions.

Your are right too when you say that there is a lot of weirdo's on the internet with all sorts of conspiracy theories, kinda like our friend in this thread who made several claims based on what he probably saw or read on some website.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The White Elephant Dream is older than Christianity,
also it is written down in ancient Chinese and Korean manuscripts before the introduction of Christianity.

The issue was the virgin birth, not the white elephant dream. I was quoting a professor of Buddhist Studies at one of the NY universities, who said that those early manuscripts made no mention of a virgin birth, just an unconventional conception in the case of Buddha, but that his mother was "married" for a long time before he was conceived, making it highly unlikely that she was a virgin given the prevailing culture of the time. I cannot check now, I am at work, will send the reference later.

Oh, I see.
You're right, the mother is not a virgin, however no paternal parent.

That being said, this story does pre-date Christianity, the mother not being a virgin none the less.

Yup.