Comments for A Trip to Josiahland

Comment on Day of Week from Timestamp by Josiah

Josiah — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:53:54 +0000

Wait whoops! Good catch. I forgot to divide by seconds per day. Fixed now.

Comment on Day of Week from Timestamp by mattyohe

mattyohe — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:46:10 +0000

Wait… How does this work?

Say it’s one second later: 1328767658

Comment on Wanda Lee by Leland and Letha Jackson

Leland and Letha Jackson — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:08:01 +0000

Fred you and your Family have done a tremendous work in honoring
Your Mother’s life. Letha and I have been impressed with your dedication
and skill in the effort put forth. You have truly accomplished your goals.
Letha and Leland

Comment on Wanda Lee by Kristina L. Ross

Kristina L. Ross — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:00:54 +0000

I am so sorry for your loss. I am glad to see that you took the time to remember the good times. I’m sure she will live in the memories of all she touched.

Comment on Wanda Lee by Dan Shaffer

Dan Shaffer — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:57:10 +0000

Josiah,

Your dad and you have done such a nice job with these tributes. Reading your dad’s memories stirred up many of my own. Your grandmother was a grand lady. Her type of person will never be seen again. Open, honest down-to-earth people have always been rare and seldom valued properly.

Let your dad know I’ll be praying for you all.

Dan Shaffer

Comment on Taglines by marty mcclurg

marty mcclurg — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:52:15 +0000

Thanks for your honesty and openness! That’s the only way we can ever even begin to have any kind of meaningful, personal relationships. I think it’s a pretty selfish and self-absorbed existence to live in our own little world of one.

I’m looking forward to hearing more about Josiah C. McClurg, so please keep writing.

Comment on Taglines by Gregg

Gregg — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:10:38 +0000

You’re very courageous for putting all this personal stuff out in the open.

I might even be inspired to create my own blog.

Comment on IMO by Gregg

Gregg — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:22:36 +0000

Perhaps I should revise my original statement. Science doesn’t necessarily describe “objective reality”–that depends on your philosophy of science. However, It does concern itself with describing any observable phenomenon (I am speaking here of empirical science, not of math). Under my view this is equivalent to describing physical reality, although if there were anything observable which is non-physical it would in principle be subject to scientific study as well.

Whether or not God is subject to scientific study will depend on your definition of God, and whether it lends itself to observation.

Events happening a long time ago hardly puts them “outside the realm of science”. Sure it is extremely difficult to verify one way or another–the same could probably be said of all science (research is hard!). Nonetheless there is evidence about what happened in the distant past which can be pieced together. This is what natural historians do. Miracles such as virgin births and resurrections can be said to contradict science in that they contradict established scientific theories.

In the case of Thunderbirds, I may have been too quick to say they contradict science. My brief reading on the subject tells me they were thought to be giant birds which were capable of creating thunder and lightening. If they were thought to be the only source of thunder and lightening, this does contradict science. There is already an adequate scientific description of what causes thunder and lightening, and Thunderbirds are ruled out via Occam’s razor. Otherwise, yes, the existence of a previously undocumented species of bird does not contradict science. However, it is still within the realm of science because it is, in principle, subject to observation.

Comment on IMO by Josiah

Josiah — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:22:19 +0000

Science isn’t about universal “objective reality.” It’s restricted to physical reality and abstract logical progressions. God’s existence and the various core philosophies of Christianity (namely, those about how humans are to properly relate to God and other people) are beyond both, so claims about God’s existence or a particular religion’s utility is mostly outside of science.

Virgin births, resurrections, and Thunderbirds do fall into the realm of physical reality, but they are statements about the distant past, which is extremely difficult to verify one way or the other. I can say “most scientists don’t believe the Thunderbird was real,” but their non-belief bears little more certainty than my non-belief (which is based on nothing more than the fact that I’ve never seen a Thunderbird). There’s just not enough hard evidence to be really adamant scientifically.

Also, the prompt was “Can religion and science be reconciled?”

Comment on IMO by Gregg

Gregg — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:32:28 +0000

Also, this was for a history of math assignment? What was the assignment?