Really? Because I posted the reality of the Talmud? Umm...
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Reliable science?
- Thread starter Corn Pop
- Start date
Really? Because I posted the reality of the Talmud? Umm...
No, you are blinded by your own post.
No, not actually. When you read the Talmud and see what it says, its completely anti-Christ. The sooner Chrisitans wake up to this reality the better. Go see for your self, do a little reading.
The Talmud is not the friend of Christ, the Christian or the truth...sorry.
http://watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html
Snip >>> In 1242, the Talmud was put on trial and ordered to be burned, by King Louis IX, because of its vicious slanders against Jesus Christ and Christians. It was stated that The Talmud encouraged the robbery and deception of Christians as a virtue; that it was permitted to break a promise, and so on.
The stories contained in Toledot Yeshu and similar teachings were well-known in Jewish circles, but did not come to the knowledge of Gentiles or Christians until Raymond Martin translated the Toledot Yeshu into Latin. Later, Martin Luther summarized it in German under the name Schem Hamphorasch; Luther's expose is available in French in Gustave Brunet's, Evangiles Apocryphes. 11.
According to Geschichte der Juden, by Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz, the image presented of Jesus Christ is simply as an initiate of Essenism; in other words, Jesus was just performing the miracles that any adept in the mystery religions could do.
"…Thus the Jewish historian Graetz declares that Jesus simply appropriated to himself the essential features of Essenism, and that primitive Christianity was "nothing but an offshoot of Essenism"2" 12a.Nesta Webster wrote the Talmud characterizes Jesus Christ as a magician for an esoteric sect, such as the Essenes:". . . So after representing Christ as a magician in the Toledot Yeshu and the Talmud, Jewish tradition seeks to explain His miraculous works as those of a mere healer--an idea that we shall find descending right through the secret societies to this day… if the miracles of Christ were simply due to a knowledge of natural laws and His doctrines were the outcome of a sect, the whole theory of His divine power and mission falls to the ground…" 12.When the Jewish teachings regarding Jesus Christ were discovered in the early 1600's, a cover-up ensued. In 1631, a Jewish synod in Poland ordered the offending passages to be expunged, and that these teaching were to be passed on orally to young Jews by Rabbis. This is documented by P.L.B Drach:"Drach, op.cit. I.168, 169. The text of this encyclical is given in Hebrew and also in translation, thus: " This is why we enjoin you, under the pain of excommunication major, to print nothing in future editions, whether of Mischna or of the Gemara, which relates whether for good or evil to the acts of Jesus the Nazarene, and to substitute instead a circle like this O, which will warn the Rabbis and schoolmasters to teach the young these passages only viva voce. By means of this precaution the savants amongst the Nazarenes will have no further pretext to attack us on this subject. Cf, Abbe'Chiarini, Le Talmud de Babylone, p. 45 (1831)."13.<<<<<
The Talmud is not the friend of Christ, the Christian or the truth...sorry.
http://watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html
Snip >>> In 1242, the Talmud was put on trial and ordered to be burned, by King Louis IX, because of its vicious slanders against Jesus Christ and Christians. It was stated that The Talmud encouraged the robbery and deception of Christians as a virtue; that it was permitted to break a promise, and so on.
The stories contained in Toledot Yeshu and similar teachings were well-known in Jewish circles, but did not come to the knowledge of Gentiles or Christians until Raymond Martin translated the Toledot Yeshu into Latin. Later, Martin Luther summarized it in German under the name Schem Hamphorasch; Luther's expose is available in French in Gustave Brunet's, Evangiles Apocryphes. 11.
According to Geschichte der Juden, by Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz, the image presented of Jesus Christ is simply as an initiate of Essenism; in other words, Jesus was just performing the miracles that any adept in the mystery religions could do.
"…Thus the Jewish historian Graetz declares that Jesus simply appropriated to himself the essential features of Essenism, and that primitive Christianity was "nothing but an offshoot of Essenism"2" 12a.Nesta Webster wrote the Talmud characterizes Jesus Christ as a magician for an esoteric sect, such as the Essenes:". . . So after representing Christ as a magician in the Toledot Yeshu and the Talmud, Jewish tradition seeks to explain His miraculous works as those of a mere healer--an idea that we shall find descending right through the secret societies to this day… if the miracles of Christ were simply due to a knowledge of natural laws and His doctrines were the outcome of a sect, the whole theory of His divine power and mission falls to the ground…" 12.When the Jewish teachings regarding Jesus Christ were discovered in the early 1600's, a cover-up ensued. In 1631, a Jewish synod in Poland ordered the offending passages to be expunged, and that these teaching were to be passed on orally to young Jews by Rabbis. This is documented by P.L.B Drach:"Drach, op.cit. I.168, 169. The text of this encyclical is given in Hebrew and also in translation, thus: " This is why we enjoin you, under the pain of excommunication major, to print nothing in future editions, whether of Mischna or of the Gemara, which relates whether for good or evil to the acts of Jesus the Nazarene, and to substitute instead a circle like this O, which will warn the Rabbis and schoolmasters to teach the young these passages only viva voce. By means of this precaution the savants amongst the Nazarenes will have no further pretext to attack us on this subject. Cf, Abbe'Chiarini, Le Talmud de Babylone, p. 45 (1831)."13.<<<<<
brother Paul
Member
Anyone read the View in the August 18th Time Magazine??? Is there corruption in the "peer-review" process?
brother Paul
Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...etracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-academic-publisher-32-articles-questioned/
The OP speaks nothing against the possible truth value of the other 98%, it merely questions the premise of reliance on the peer review process as being the end all as to acceptance of what may or may not be correct.
For every one faulty or fudged study, contribution, or conclusion that is caught, four or five more sneak through unnoticed and otherwise, while not correct or even falsified, are presently being relied upon, quoted as support, and can (or may have) even influence the direction of scientific thought.
The problem here is, which of the accepted articles and studies constitute part of the additional 4 to 5% that have snuck through unnoticed? (I would also add that it is other scientists who do catch those that get noticed, sometimes as simple as not being able to get the same results when studies are repeated)...
o...it was just that this was not the intent...the question of interest to Christians should be one of reliability. There is such a long stream of misrepresented fact, hoaxes, and intentionally fudged data (going all the way back to Ernst Haekel), and now this discovery of the peer review process, that it should come as no surprise to you that we wonder why we are supposed tonot question the conclusions we are told we are to accept. If the conclusions of EB are so "established", and allegedly "true", then why the need for all the chicanery? Why have to give generations of students the deceptions as if they are true? The only articles and studies that should be allowed are those which a number of others have repeated (more than one) with the same results...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-academic-publisher-32-articles-questioned/
The OP speaks nothing against the possible truth value of the other 98%, it merely questions the premise of reliance on the peer review process as being the end all as to acceptance of what may or may not be correct.
For every one faulty or fudged study, contribution, or conclusion that is caught, four or five more sneak through unnoticed and otherwise, while not correct or even falsified, are presently being relied upon, quoted as support, and can (or may have) even influence the direction of scientific thought.
The problem here is, which of the accepted articles and studies constitute part of the additional 4 to 5% that have snuck through unnoticed? (I would also add that it is other scientists who do catch those that get noticed, sometimes as simple as not being able to get the same results when studies are repeated)...
o...it was just that this was not the intent...the question of interest to Christians should be one of reliability. There is such a long stream of misrepresented fact, hoaxes, and intentionally fudged data (going all the way back to Ernst Haekel), and now this discovery of the peer review process, that it should come as no surprise to you that we wonder why we are supposed tonot question the conclusions we are told we are to accept. If the conclusions of EB are so "established", and allegedly "true", then why the need for all the chicanery? Why have to give generations of students the deceptions as if they are true? The only articles and studies that should be allowed are those which a number of others have repeated (more than one) with the same results...
Barbarian
Member
Those for which no one has sufficient interest to see if they can be reproduced. If they lead to more research, then people are going to test them. If they don't arouse much interest, or lead to new work, then they can go undiscovered for some time.
But then, it they don't affect new scientific work, it's not much of a problem. And if they do, then they get tested for reproducibility. That's why the discovered frauds are usually in hot topic, where people are doing a lot of work.
I was exposed to the frustration of a creationist, who obsessed on about the drawings of Haeckel, only to learn that scientists are now using photographs of the same things, showing the same features mentioned by Haeckel.
You're thinking of creationism. Science requires that we question everything. Even research. That's why, if a report cannot be reproduced, the researcher is in big trouble. That's enough to end a career.
There is not such need. That's why, as you may have noticed, debunking of creationist claims is always done with peer-reviewed (and reproduced) research. It's why textbooks only include research that's been both peer-reviewed, and reproduced.
I'm aware of the creationist anger at a number of such reports. Once, the Institute for Creation Research reported that Neandertals played bagpipes and tubas, only to later discover that they had copied a hoax. But it was not from the literature; it was from a popular magazine that published it as a humorous spoof.
They didn't know the difference. But I suspect most others did.
brother Paul
Member
No anger just reality....
brother Paul
Member
Yes Barbarian, we agree here...reliable Science should be repeatable…the results of an experiment should be able to be repeated over and over, yielding the same results when following the same set of procedures. When this happens the results are then confirmed and reliable (although there are times when results can sometimes legitimately be interpreted or explained in alternative ways). There should be proper controls in place as well, to assure one knows what may be causing any effect/results and to assure it is not something else. Do you agree with this as well? Indeed these are some areas that encourage exclusion or retraction...
Now in relation to this, I think subjective methodology must always be suspect (like if only one group of experimenters, or only their results are the ones considered) because the results could contain some bias, or may only be being looked at from a particular angle, or even on occasion with a pre-selected end in sight. Likewise opposing opinions make for good science forcing the various sides to stay on their toes. Also in my opinion (worth $.02) we must watch for and be informed about the failed attempts that require modifications to gain what appears to be the desired results. These things can change conclusions. Don't you think it is better science to allow other scientists and the public forum to view all the tries that did not get the desired result as well?
Finally, consensus is not evidence or proof. It is nothing more than the age old argument ad populum fallacy (often mixed with the appeal to authority fallacy) which is also used as a technique of propaganda to convince the masses and shape public opinion. By this, the pedagogues, Ad teams, or politicians supporting any favored or accepted notion can imply rejection of any theory, interpretation, or even experiment/study that offers explanations at variance with the one they support or insist is the correct and supported view (or at least the one they want to convince you is the correct or supported view). However, consensus due to reproduced results is perhaps more legitimate.
Now in relation to this, I think subjective methodology must always be suspect (like if only one group of experimenters, or only their results are the ones considered) because the results could contain some bias, or may only be being looked at from a particular angle, or even on occasion with a pre-selected end in sight. Likewise opposing opinions make for good science forcing the various sides to stay on their toes. Also in my opinion (worth $.02) we must watch for and be informed about the failed attempts that require modifications to gain what appears to be the desired results. These things can change conclusions. Don't you think it is better science to allow other scientists and the public forum to view all the tries that did not get the desired result as well?
Finally, consensus is not evidence or proof. It is nothing more than the age old argument ad populum fallacy (often mixed with the appeal to authority fallacy) which is also used as a technique of propaganda to convince the masses and shape public opinion. By this, the pedagogues, Ad teams, or politicians supporting any favored or accepted notion can imply rejection of any theory, interpretation, or even experiment/study that offers explanations at variance with the one they support or insist is the correct and supported view (or at least the one they want to convince you is the correct or supported view). However, consensus due to reproduced results is perhaps more legitimate.
Barbarian
Member
It's why the guys committing fraud want no one at all to pay attention to their stuff. If it becomes of interest to other researchers, someone will notice that the results can't be repeated, and then, consequences ensue.
That's not methodology. How you collect and analyze data is methodology.
Most journals require that the raw data be available.
Science isn't about proof. Merely sufficient confidence to be sure. But I don't know of any journals that would accept a paper that merely cited consensus as a conclusion. (unless the study was trying to determine what the consensus is)
A good example is those lists of "scientists who doubt Darwin", being touted by creationists. It is often effective propaganda, but the guys who set up "Project Steve" pretty well derailed that fallacy.
I don't see that kind of thing in journals, though, specifically because it's not very reliable. As an undergraduate, I cited one instance of research in which the sets of data were not normally distributed, but the means of such data sets were normally distributed. It caused a good deal of discussion as to whether or not the finding was good science. What do you think?
Read this and tell me that MS ( main stream) science tells us the TRUE tale...
http://www.creationmoments.com/in-the-minds-of-men-darwin-and-the-new-world-order-ian-taylor
http://www.creationmoments.com/in-the-minds-of-men-darwin-and-the-new-world-order-ian-taylor
Barbarian
Member
Just more unsupported assertions. The real issue is that the peer-review system coincided with a huge burst of scientific discovery that has completely changed life for us. In short, it works. No one pays much attention to ID anymore, because it doesn't work.
And that's what matters. If ID or creationism worked, scientists would use it no matter who disapproved. And because it doesn't work, no one will give it any time.
And that's what matters. If ID or creationism worked, scientists would use it no matter who disapproved. And because it doesn't work, no one will give it any time.
What nonsense. "Peer review system"?? So we are to trust men's minds over Gods word? Foolishness.
The Creation is clearly "ID" ( intelligent design ).
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.21
Romans 1:20
logical bob
Member
Hello Paloma.
You can actually read the whole of In the Minds of Men for free here: http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/
Here's an extract from Chapter 12. Taylor is arguing for a 19th century suggestion that the sun is fuelled by the fact that it's shrinking under its own gravity. He likes this theory because if it were true it would suggest that the sun isn't nearly as old as modern science suggests, but it was abandoned in the 1930s when it was found that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion processes, similar to that of the hydrogen bomb, produce subatomic particles called neutrinos. It was expected that the earth would be bathed in these particles as they continuously pour out of the sun's interior. After a number of elaborate experiments conducted by Bahcall (1969), however, the quantity of neutrinos detected was "less than a fifth of the predicted value and may be zero" (Yockey 1977; Bahcall and Davis 1976). This leaves the theoreticians in a dilemma; indeed it has been admitted by two workers that the "situation has advanced in the past years from being merely difficult to understand to being impossible to live with" (Trimble and Reines 1973). The solar neutrino problem is not confined to our planetary system but has cosmological implications. If thermonuclear reactions do not provide the sun's energy and contraction is discounted because the process can only account for a few million years, then the whole of astronomical evolution faces a serious challenge (Sutton 1980).
This is topical because this week the Nobel Prize for Physics has been awarded to two scientists who have solved this problem by showing, in a decade of work, that most of the neutrinos that reach the earth from the sun change during the journey and arrive as a different type of neutrino, which can be detected when we're looking for the right thing.
Here we see two very different approaches to unanswered questions in science. At the first sign of a problem Taylor wants to give up and go back to the 19th century. Instead of doing that the Nobel winners looked forward and worked hard to solve the problem. And if scientists didn't work that way, if they weren't driven by hard questions, we wouldn't have the technologies and medical treatments that we do.
You can actually read the whole of In the Minds of Men for free here: http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/
Here's an extract from Chapter 12. Taylor is arguing for a 19th century suggestion that the sun is fuelled by the fact that it's shrinking under its own gravity. He likes this theory because if it were true it would suggest that the sun isn't nearly as old as modern science suggests, but it was abandoned in the 1930s when it was found that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion processes, similar to that of the hydrogen bomb, produce subatomic particles called neutrinos. It was expected that the earth would be bathed in these particles as they continuously pour out of the sun's interior. After a number of elaborate experiments conducted by Bahcall (1969), however, the quantity of neutrinos detected was "less than a fifth of the predicted value and may be zero" (Yockey 1977; Bahcall and Davis 1976). This leaves the theoreticians in a dilemma; indeed it has been admitted by two workers that the "situation has advanced in the past years from being merely difficult to understand to being impossible to live with" (Trimble and Reines 1973). The solar neutrino problem is not confined to our planetary system but has cosmological implications. If thermonuclear reactions do not provide the sun's energy and contraction is discounted because the process can only account for a few million years, then the whole of astronomical evolution faces a serious challenge (Sutton 1980).
This is topical because this week the Nobel Prize for Physics has been awarded to two scientists who have solved this problem by showing, in a decade of work, that most of the neutrinos that reach the earth from the sun change during the journey and arrive as a different type of neutrino, which can be detected when we're looking for the right thing.
Here we see two very different approaches to unanswered questions in science. At the first sign of a problem Taylor wants to give up and go back to the 19th century. Instead of doing that the Nobel winners looked forward and worked hard to solve the problem. And if scientists didn't work that way, if they weren't driven by hard questions, we wouldn't have the technologies and medical treatments that we do.
Barbarian
Member
ID is trusting men's minds over God's word. He gave us minds and curiosity to learn the things He didn't tell us about. It's a sin to retreat from reason and knowledge.
Creation was not done by a "space alien designer" as the IDers suggest. No design is required. In fact, engineers are beginning to learn to use evolutionary processes for problems to big to be handled by design. As usual, God knows best.
Bottom line? ID doesn't work. And if it doesn't work, what good is it?