Paradigm Shifts, Science, and Revisionist History

[Pard]

Around 1920 a new paradigm shift hit the western world. We began to move from the modern age (1700-1920) into the post-modern age (1920-1990). This brought on a new way of "thinking" known as "pluralism".

"Pluralism" is now known to be a flawed way of thinking. "Pluralism" was the answer to a quickly imploding world. Religions and ideas from around the world were quickly being thrown together. Instead of trying to hash through the many new ideas and come to a conclusion as to which was the right and which was the wrong. "Pluralism" said that you cannot praise or criticize any idea. Basically, no idea is considered wrong in "pluralism". Inevitably "pluralism" had to collapse for the world to continue functioning.

(Just a side note, for those interested. "Pluralism" also ushered in a means of using tolerance as an oppressive force. It could create artificial minorities, dividing people and making them reconsider their own views. If your boss has ever told you "You need to be a team player", well you have experienced the oppression of tolerance.)

With "pluralism" came a surge of revisionist history. That is, the rewriting of history. Now, this is always happening, (in fact, if you have ever lied about an event, than you have partaken, to a lesser extent, in revisionist history) but in the 1920s and '30s we see a huge surge in it. The reason for this surge is unclear, however some people think that it is because of the growing strife in Europe and because of the global depression.

At the same time we see a spiritual surge. People are quickly coming back to religions (those living in the north-east and on the west coast of America are experiencing a lag and this spiritual surge is still coming for them... dun, dun, dun) . Another new thing that the world is experiencing during this time is a change in the way science is viewed. Science is changing into a viable (for some people) means of living, at this time. That means that people can live apart from religion and still have a complete understanding of their world and purpose.

These three things meet in the 30s and 40s.

What we see is an academic explosion and a new found aggression against religion, and specifically Christianity.

What happens is the revisionists and the scientists rework some of the history to portray Christians as militantly against science throughout the ages. Now this is all I will say about this because no one knows (read: no one is coming forward) exactly how it all worked out, but this is what ended up happening.

You may not be aware of this, but I am sure you are aware of the repercussions.

-Christianity is blamed for attacking Copernicus and Galileo for the proposition on the world being round. In reality one priest came out in protest, along with the ENTIRE scientific community of that time. In fact, a Christian is the reason both of these men went into science and did what they did. They were both fundamental Christians and they both believed that they were simply studying God's creation.

-Christianity is blamed for attacking Darwin's evolutionary theory. In reality his Christian theologian friends from college urged him to take the trip on the Beagle and then later urged him to go forward with his book. When he published it the scientists attacked him, along with one bishop from England. Darwin even ends his book stating he is a Christian who is looking into God's creation.

There are other instances and I will be more than happy to give them to you, but you will have to wait until Tuesday because I left my Philosophy book in class last night... These two are from the top of my head.

Now, in the 1980s and, in America, the 1990s this revisionist history began to recede back and if you view textbooks from the 80s and 90s and compare them to those of the early 1900s you will notice that they are very similar, as compared to books between the 30s and 70s.

In 1990 globalization came to Europe and much of the rest of the world and it reached America 11 years later on September 11th, 2001. Globalization brought a new theory which demanded that our spiritual selves must live second to our worldy selves. We call this "dual allegiance". Because of this the academic world stopped correcting much of the history which had been revised during the last 80 or so years.

In the last few years a new mentality has been arising which demands "truth". There are two views on this. A) this "truth" movement will look for the absolute truth and will continue the work done int he 80s and 90s. B) this "truth" movement will look for the "comfortable truth", which will further revise history to create a "truth" that is appeasing and comfortable to swallow.

 

[coffeeelover]

So you are saying copernicus and gallileo were not threatened with herrissy? What other history has been changed? Why is pluralism bad. What was before pluralism?

Why can't you discuss with out a textbook? Did you plagiarise and not site? Why do you have such disdain for science?

 

[Pard]

No, these are my notes and I of course turned them into something coherent. If you'd like a source the notes were taken at a lecture by Dr. J.T Sheldon III

Before pluralism we were based in Greek philosophy mostly, of course it was modernized from the times of Socrates. It was more of a romanticized form of Greek philosophy, keep in mind that in the time between 1700 and roughly 1880 Latin was experiencing a new surge that it had not seen since the fall of Rome. This meant a lot of the Greek philosophy was "tainted" with Roman ideals, Christianity, and some of the absorbed cultures of Rome (Gaul, Celts, ect.).

Pluralism is bad and we have moved on already. I don't see why I need to explain why pluralism is bad, since society has already determined it is not practical at all. But it doesn't take much common sense to understand why it doesn't work. In a pluralistic society EVERY idea is not only valid, but untouchable. You cannot correct a flaw in an idea, nor can your praise it. By the vary definition you cannot even take an idea and extrapolate it into your own idea. If you hear something you like, in a pluralistic setting, you must keep it to yourself and never act upon it. Likewise, if an idea is plan, down right stupid, you cannot act against it.

The post-modern age was a transitional stage between Modernism and Globalism. It lasted less than a 100 years and so it was dominated by a single view, pluralism. This is why I had to be so general with what the modern age had, because it was 220 years long. The global stage is a baby, so it is impossible to say what it is going to end up as yet.

Some think we are going to be seeing a surge in "liberalism" (paternalism/materialism). This is said because usually the first view that comes out in an age is created in the previous age and paternalism was king of that post-modern age, however no one acted on it (for the most part).

A technology view is coming out as well. No one knows much about what that would entail, but it is a consideration and so is a secular-dualism. This is the idea that people will have a religious preference, but this is just a cultural thing and is also second to an allegiance to a secular view of the world. (Think Christianity among afluent academic types and the very rich) Another thinking says that we will have a "soft-despotism", that is our ideas will coaxed into our minds, we will not have a chance to criticize or praise, it will just be right.

I never said he was not threatened with heresy, but the threat came not from the church, but from a single bishop, or something (I have no clue about RCC levels of pastor-hood).

I can discuss without a textbook, but if you want specific instances of revisionist history becoming aggressive towards Christianity, than you will have to wait until Tuesday when I can get my book back...

I love science. The problem is that people see science as a fact. It was never meant to be a fact, it has always been treated as a theory (until the post-modern era...). Science is a really cool field of study and I happen to enjoy my fair share of science/geek talk. The problem is militant atheism/sciencism.

You are a Christian. You should be happy that I am trying to rectify the wrongs done by academia against the body of Christ. (You are Christian, right? I just kind of assumed you were...)

Go take a philosophy class, this is my second and they both have talked about this. You can also go to Harvard in the spring, my professor co-hosts a philosophy seminar for a week during spring break every year, this is the stuff they talk about, not me. I am regurgitating what the dudes with prefixes that are not "Mr. or Mrs." say.

 

[coffeeelover]

No, these are my notes and I of course turned them into something coherent. If you'd like a source the notes were taken at a lecture by Dr. J.T Sheldon III

Before pluralism we were based in Greek philosophy mostly, of course it was modernized from the times of Socrates. It was more of a romanticized form of Greek philosophy, keep in mind that in the time between 1700 and roughly 1880 Latin was experiencing a new surge that it had not seen since the fall of Rome. This meant a lot of the Greek philosophy was "tainted" with Roman ideals, Christianity, and some of the absorbed cultures of Rome (Gaul, Celts, ect.).

Pluralism is bad and we have moved on already. I don't see why I need to explain why pluralism is bad, since society has already determined it is not practical at all. But it doesn't take much common sense to understand why it doesn't work. In a pluralistic society EVERY idea is not only valid, but untouchable. You cannot correct a flaw in an idea, nor can your praise it. By the vary definition you cannot even take an idea and extrapolate it into your own idea. If you hear something you like, in a pluralistic setting, you must keep it to yourself and never act upon it. Likewise, if an idea is plan, down right stupid, you cannot act against it.

The post-modern age was a transitional stage between Modernism and Globalism. It lasted less than a 100 years and so it was dominated by a single view, pluralism. This is why I had to be so general with what the modern age had, because it was 220 years long. The global stage is a baby, so it is impossible to say what it is going to end up as yet.

Some think we are going to be seeing a surge in "liberalism" (paternalism/materialism). This is said because usually the first view that comes out in an age is created in the previous age and paternalism was king of that post-modern age, however no one acted on it (for the most part).

A technology view is coming out as well. No one knows much about what that would entail, but it is a consideration and so is a secular-dualism. This is the idea that people will have a religious preference, but this is just a cultural thing and is also second to an allegiance to a secular view of the world. (Think Christianity among afluent academic types and the very rich) Another thinking says that we will have a "soft-despotism", that is our ideas will coaxed into our minds, we will not have a chance to criticize or praise, it will just be right.

I never said he was not threatened with heresy, but the threat came not from the church, but from a single bishop, or something (I have no clue about RCC levels of pastor-hood).

I can discuss without a textbook, but if you want specific instances of revisionist history becoming aggressive towards Christianity, than you will have to wait until Tuesday when I can get my book back...

I love science. The problem is that people see science as a fact. It was never meant to be a fact, it has always been treated as a theory (until the post-modern era...). Science is a really cool field of study and I happen to enjoy my fair share of science/geek talk. The problem is militant atheism/sciencism.

You are a Christian. You should be happy that I am trying to rectify the wrongs done by academia against the body of Christ. (You are Christian, right? I just kind of assumed you were...)

Go take a philosophy class, this is my second and they both have talked about this. You can also go to Harvard in the spring, my professor co-hosts a philosophy seminar for a week during spring break every year, this is the stuff they talk about, not me. I am regurgitating what the dudes with prefixes that are not "Mr. or Mrs." say.

Pluralism is bad? Why would you say that? What type of Pluralism do you mean? What makes Pluralism bad? How have we "moved on" Pluralism is a description of several philosophies. Societies don't simply discard philosophies. Socrates is relevant today as is pluralism. Further, your description of Pluralism is naive. Pluralism the philosophy does not contend that all ideas are equally valid, or that they are untouchable. Also, the idea of a pluralistic society is not that same as the philosophy of pluralism. You need to study harder, as I don't think you understand your notes.

Post modernism was not a mere transitional stage. Post modernism is a complex set of philosophies. Post Modernism is much a criticism of Modernism. Post Modernism influences, language, art, architecture, writing. Post Modernism is still around today.

I am not aware of the philosophy of "Globalism". In business school the word is thrown around quite a lot to describe the exponentially increasing, communication, trade, and mutual dependency between nations. Globalism has been around before. The world saw a big rise in Globalism just before WWI. Globalism as a philosophy could be the view held by some that we should view the interests of the collective of the world above the interests of any single nation.

Science was not meant to be fact? Science from its inception has been about observing facts. Science still is. Theories of how the universe function must be consistent with observed facts. If they are not they are revised or discarded. That is how science has always worked. If you think otherwise you do not understand what science is.

Your out to rectify the wrongs done to the body of Christ by academia? OK. What are those wrongs? How do you plan to rectify them?

 

[Strangelove]

Nice topic.

In my opinion, all modern theoretical science is pure folly.

From Copernicus to Carl Sagan.

Any theory which involves assumptions cannot be commited to trust.

The only science that is really worth its salt is Earth sciences like Chemistry, Biology and real Physics etc.

Modern theoretical science is a MAJOR reason why there has been such a falling away from the Bible in the last 100 years.....mainly because of EVILution.

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoidingprofane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace bewith thee. Amen.

The Earth is fixed in the centre of our universe just like the Bible tells us.

All the gazillions of galaxies and nebulas and wotnot that NASA (a branch of the US government) claim exist in space are simply reflections of stars off the waters above the firmament.

Evolution is a scienceless fable and all the theorys that support it (15 million year old, 15 million light year wide, ever expanding universe) are ripped straight from the Christ hating "holy" books of the Pharisees....namely the Zohar, Talmud and Kaballah.

Discuss?

By the way>>>How comes the Science section of the forum is locked??
​

 

[coffeeelover]

Nice topic.

In my opinion, all modern theoretical science is pure folly.

From Copernicus to Carl Sagan.

Any theory which involves assumptions cannot be commited to trust.

The only science that is really worth its salt is Earth sciences like Chemistry, Biology and real Physics etc.

Modern theoretical science is a MAJOR reason why there has been such a falling away from the Bible in the last 100 years.....mainly because of EVILution.

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoidingprofane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace bewith thee. Amen.

The Earth is fixed in the centre of our universe just like the Bible tells us.

All the gazillions of galaxies and nebulas and wotnot that NASA (a branch of the US government) claim exist in space are simply reflections of stars off the waters above the firmament.

Evolution is a scienceless fable and all the theorys that support it (15 million year old, 15 million light year wide, ever expanding universe) are ripped straight from the Christ hating "holy" books of the Pharisees....namely the Zohar, Talmud and Kaballah.

Discuss?

By the way>>>How comes the Science section of the forum is locked??
​

Your ideas are indeed strange, strangelove.

"all modern theoretical science is pure folly.

From Copernicus to Carl Sagan". Interesting. So you don't think the sun is the center of the universe? How about the germ model of disease? You say other galaxies don't exist, but how do you deal with pictures from Hubble that clearly show other galaxies?

You say you only like earth sciences like biology. Biology is firmly based about the idea that the earth is billions of years old, as is life, and that it has evolved over that period of time.

What is real physics? Newtonian physics? If Einstein was wrong how did we detonate a nuclear bomb? If quantum mechanics is wrong how does my computer work?

Where is the firmament and why can't satellites see it?

 

[Strangelove]

Interesting. So you don't think the sun is the center of the universe? How about the germ model of disease? You say other galaxies don't exist, but how do you deal with pictures from Hubble that clearly show other galaxies?

You say you only like earth sciences like biology. Biology is firmly based about the idea that the earth is billions of years old, as is life, and that it has evolved over that period of time.

What is real physics? Newtonian physics? If Einstein was wrong how did we detonate a nuclear bomb? If quantum mechanics is wrong how does my computer work?

Where is the firmament and why can't satellites see it?

Um....Lolz....I cant work out if your post is a joke or not??

If you're serious I'll address your points>>>

Please confirm>>>Lolz.

Over.

 

[coffeeelover]

Um....Lolz....I cant work out if your post is a joke or not??

If you're serious I'll address your points>>>

Please confirm>>>Lolz.

Over.

See I thought the same thing about your post. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. I made a serious reply.

 

[Pard]

CL,

If you honestly think science is strictly fact, than I think I will bow out now, because I really do not wish to carry on with someone of that view. I'm not blaming you, you went through the public education system (or the private) and that is the view they hammer into your brain.

It's funny when you go from a high school science class to college science class... In the high school class the teacher tells you this is fact. Int he college one everything, all of a sudden, becomes theory and hypothetical. A bit of a jolt for some people, like those in your shoes.

As for pluralism, go look at it. There are about 20 different definitions of pluralism. I am merely telling you the pluralistic nature that dominated the academic world for a small time between the 1920s and 1990. I seriously doubt you even experienced it, I sure did not. It ended abruptly in 1990 when someone pointed out how stupid it really was. Like I said, if everything is true than it really puts a hamper on further study and ideas.

I like how you go "Postmodern era is not transitional" and then in the next breathe you say that it is. It is transitional BECAUSE it was a critique of the modern era! Go brush up on your philosophy...

Strangelove, first of all, good name. Such a good movie...

I'm not even sure if biology is "worth it's salt." I agree with chemistry and basic physics. I say basic because there are about a million different theoretical physic models, all of them vying for the role as the standard.

Coffee, not saying I agree with SL on this, but his view would be that the hubble is seeing a reflection... which I think he made kinda clear.

 

[coffeeelover]

CL,

If you honestly think science is strictly fact, than I think I will bow out now, because I really do not wish to carry on with someone of that view. I'm not blaming you, you went through the public education system (or the private) and that is the view they hammer into your brain.

It's funny when you go from a high school science class to college science class... In the high school class the teacher tells you this is fact. Int he college one everything, all of a sudden, becomes theory and hypothetical. A bit of a jolt for some people, like those in your shoes.

As for pluralism, go look at it. There are about 20 different definitions of pluralism. I am merely telling you the pluralistic nature that dominated the academic world for a small time between the 1920s and 1990. I seriously doubt you even experienced it, I sure did not. It ended abruptly in 1990 when someone pointed out how stupid it really was. Like I said, if everything is true than it really puts a hamper on further study and ideas.

I like how you go "Postmodern era is not transitional" and then in the next breathe you say that it is. It is transitional BECAUSE it was a critique of the modern era! Go brush up on your philosophy...

Strangelove, first of all, good name. Such a good movie...

I'm not even sure if biology is "worth it's salt." I agree with chemistry and basic physics. I say basic because there are about a million different theoretical physic models, all of them vying for the role as the standard.

Coffee, not saying I agree with SL on this, but his view would be that the hubble is seeing a reflection... which I think he made kinda clear.

Science isn't strictly fact, but a Theory has to be testable. If that theory doesn't agree with the facts that come from the test then it is revised or discarded. That is how science works.

Post Modernism is not transitional. It is merely a critic of modernism.

 

[Strangelove]

Interesting. So you don't think the sun is the center of the universe?

Ok then. Lets start here. No,,,I dont think the sun is the centre of the universe::::::do you?

I think the Earth is the centre both geographically and spiritually (the centre of God's attention, where He sent His Son to die for us) and stars and planets in the Heavens revolve around us every 24 hours.

How about the germ model of disease?

Never heard of it. Can you explain?

You say other galaxies don't exist, but how do you deal with pictures from Hubble that clearly show other galaxies?

Ok...take the picture you posted. Now lets forget for a second that all pictures from NASA are enhanced, layered, touched up with colours etc.>>>>

It's just a bunch of lights! Just because NASA say they are galaxies doesn't make it so my friend. No siree.

In my opinion all those lights are just reflections off the waters above the firmament as I said before. Huge water crystals the size of the pacific ocean covering the inside of the boundary that seperates our universe from the nothingness beyond.

You say you only like earth sciences like biology. Biology is firmly based about the idea that the earth is billions of years old, as is life, and that it has evolved over that period of time.

Um...no....Biology is firmly based about the study of the structure and function of living organisms and also their classifications / taxonomy. Evolution is a TINY part of the Biology curriculum and is the part I dismiss because of its assumption filled theorys.

What is real physics?

Anything thats not assumption based. Stuff that you can do experiments on in the lab. Reproducable. Observable. Repeatable. Real.

If Einstein was wrong how did we detonate a nuclear bomb?

You take an extremely volatile. explosive and rare substance. Attach a fuse and a timer and then RUN!

If quantum mechanics is wrong how does my computer work?

Electrical engineering makes your computer work. Not quantum mecahnics. Unless you've got a quantum computer??

Where is the firmament and why can't satellites see it?

The firmament is defined as the space comprising of anything above the Earth's surface (even 1mm above).....right up to the waters above the firmament which is the boundary of our known universe. Thats the Bible definition anywayz.

You cant see it cos...um....its seethrough.

Doc >>:::::

 

[coffeeelover]

Ok then. Lets start here. No,,,I dont think the sun is the centre of the universe::::::do you?

I think the Earth is the centre both geographically and spiritually (the centre of God's attention, where He sent His Son to die for us) and stars and planets in the Heavens revolve around us every 24 hours.



Never heard of it. Can you explain?



Ok...take the picture you posted. Now lets forget for a second that all pictures from NASA are enhanced, layered, touched up with colours etc.>>>>

It's just a bunch of lights! Just because NASA say they are galaxies doesn't make it so my friend. No siree.

In my opinion all those lights are just reflections off the waters above the firmament as I said before. Huge water crystals the size of the pacific ocean covering the inside of the boundary that seperates our universe from the nothingness beyond.



Um...no....Biology is firmly based about the study of the structure and function of living organisms and also their classifications / taxonomy. Evolution is a TINY part of the Biology curriculum and is the part I dismiss because of its assumption filled theorys.



Anything thats not assumption based. Stuff that you can do experiments on in the lab. Reproducable. Observable. Repeatable. Real.



You take an extremely volatile. explosive and rare substance. Attach a fuse and a timer and then RUN!



Electrical engineering makes your computer work. Not quantum mecahnics. Unless you've got a quantum computer??



The firmament is defined as the space comprising of anything above the Earth's surface (even 1mm above).....right up to the waters above the firmament which is the boundary of our known universe. Thats the Bible definition anywayz.

You cant see it cos...um....its seethrough.

Doc >>:::::

Earth is the geographical center of the Universe, Stars and planets revolve around us, and you have never heard of germs.

Thank you very much.

 

[Strangelove]

Earth is the geographical center of the Universe, Stars and planets revolve around us, and you have never heard of germs.

Thank you very much.

You asked about the "Germ model of disease". I dont know what that is. I googled it and came up blanc. Maybe if you know what it is you can enlighten me bro.

 

[Strangelove]

Strangelove, first of all, good name. Such a good movie...

I'm not even sure if biology is "worth it's salt." I agree with chemistry and basic physics. I say basic because there are about a million different theoretical physic models, all of them vying for the role as the standard.

Hi Pard>>>>Nice to meet you dude.

Yes its a great film. As true today as it ever was. A masterpiece and my all time favourite 4shizzle.

I did Bilogy at A level (college). It's useful for knowing what bits are where on animals and how they work. Classification is useful. I agree about physics. There are alot of funky offshoots that have little validity in my eyes. When it comes to science in general I eat the meat (the tangible stuff) and throw away the bones (the occult maths and theorys).


D....D.....Doc.>>>>::

 

[Strangelove]

Heres some insightful quotes from some of the fathers of modern theoretical science:

“When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.â€

“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"--most theories, soon after conception.â€

“When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.â€

-Albert Einstein (Proponent of general relativity theory)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

" Plato is my friend - Aristotle is my friend - but my greatest friend is truth."……."Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."

-Sir Isaac Newton (“describer†of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Accordingly, since nothing prevents the earth from moving, I suggest that we should now consider also whether several motions suit it, so that it can be regarded as one of the planets. For, it is not the center of all the revolutions.â€

(So the reason for theorizing that the earth moves is because nothing prevents it? Lol.)

“I can easily conceive, most Holy Father, that as soon as some people (Bible believers) learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected.â€

“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.â€

Nicolaus Copernicus (proponent of heliocentric theory, overt sun worshipper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.â€

“So long as the mother, Ignorance, lives, it is not safe for Science (from his perspective, modern theoretical science and astrology) , the offspring, to divulge the hidden cause of thingsâ€

“I demonstrate by means of philosophy that the earth is round, and is inhabited on all sides; that it is insignificantly small, and is borne through the stars.â€

(PHILOSOPHY! Not personal, observational, repeatable science. Just musings!)

- Johannes Kepler (proponent of eponymous laws of planetary motion, raised by witches, probable murderer of Tychoe Brahe)

 

[Pard]

CL,

As I said before, you keep telling me the postmodern era was not a transitional period, and yet you then go on to prove that it is one. A transitional period is a shorter era (70 years is mighty short! compared to 220 and even more for the medieval era) that reflects an opposition to its previous era... So when you say "the post modern era is a critique of the modern era" I want to slap you because you are telling me it IS a transitional period two moments after saying it is NOT a transitional period.

Like I said, go brush up on philosophy. You have a junior college around you? Go take an introductory course...

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Pard, let me explain something to you. You don't understand enough to make these claims. You don't understand how science works, you refuse to see any negative light to came down on people professing to be Christian, and you can't understand that, Post Modernism is nothing but negative position to Modernism.

I also think you are regurgitating the words of others. I'll explain, I've seen this argument before, one difference though.

No agrees on witch ISM is the bad ism. Here is the list of isms that have been explained exactly how you explained your position.

Nihilism, Modernism, Materialism, Pluralism, relativism, Universalism, Post modernism, Naturalism.


Basicly you think the world is going down the tubes, but since you are just now starting to learn about the philosophies, you are assuming allot.


Step back, and read some more and stop trying to do apologetics for everything, just accept that sometimes people are bad and that includes some Christians. Its not that hard.

 

[coffeeelover]

This thread is funny. One kid who takes phil 101 and thinks he suddenly can prove science wrong. Another who still thinks earth is the center of the universe, doesn't know what germs are, but says he went to college. lol

 

[Strangelove]

This thread is funny. One kid who takes phil 101 and thinks he suddenly can prove science wrong. Another who still thinks earth is the center of the universe, doesn't know what germs are, but says he went to college. lol

A stationary Earth has been proved by:

1) The Bible
2) Real observational science
3) Our own God given senses
4) Logic / Common sense

A moving Earth has been proved by:

1) Modern, theoretical, flawed assumption based "science falsely so called" led by sunworshippers, kabbalhists and witches.

Um.....I think I'll go with stationary.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

You are the most obvious troll ever. Even regular Poe's know to at least hold back a little.