RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

WhoreMods -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 12:57:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since there should be millions into billions of these things, I suspect everyone else has seen them too! (can you at least find me a 99.99% man and .01% ape?)

You're a lot more than .001% ape, sport.
Really, you shouldn't be feeding people lines like that if you can help it...



Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 1:08:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

his douchiness is indisputably evident at all times, and every post he makes evokes the stench of stale vinegar.

That should give a boost to your credibility. [:D]

K.



Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 2:07:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, you just went to your own straw man.

Science never "proves" anything. It does, however, create practical theories reliably used to make predictions based on tested hypotheses formed from observation.

You went off to masturbate to your own assumptions instead.

Ironically, not very scientific. But indeed predictable.



so does every religion.

I watched the pain (emperical observations) on many occasions of the family members of a victim of murder, I watched the pain when someone trusted betrays the person that placed trust in them, and I watched the pain of rape victims suffering the rest of their lives as a result of rape.

All of which are 'thou shalt not' morals originating in religion.

Religion also offers practical theories based upon empirical observation.

I have never seen the family of a muder victim cheer for the murderer, or the victim of rape thank a rapist, nor someone whos trust has been betrayed thanks the betrayer have you?

Its seem its not a strawman, seems more like yours and several others that by into science as their god have misguided logic and faulty reasoning. [8|]






Oh boy.


Sorry man, but if you want to compare building a hypothesis in religion versus the same in science, I dont see a difference, since in cases of morals religion produces you can see that it too is based upon observed empirical data, and it appears you have no rebuttal. [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

likes a bit of a philosophical debate..but religion is utter bumf and I bet you none here, save myself, know of its origins


I think therefore I am. [8D]




PeonForHer -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 2:59:49 PM)

FR

Any Fritjof Capra fans here? 'Tao of Physics' ... or Rupert Sheldrake, 'The Presence of the Past', morphic resonance ... that sort of thing? That whole vibe has always fascinated me. Very, very intriguing.



Musicmystery -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:04:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Any Fritjof Capra fans here? 'Tao of Physics' .

Yep!



dcnovice -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:05:23 PM)

quote:

jesus was a creationist.

How do we know that?



PeonForHer -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:18:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Any Fritjof Capra fans here? 'Tao of Physics' .

Yep!


Good man! [:)]

I haven't kept up with developments since FC wrote his stuff. Do you know ... has anything been written that carries on with the Capra theme, as it were? I'd like to revisit said theme, if it's still up and running.



Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:29:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Any Fritjof Capra fans here? 'Tao of Physics' .

Yep!

Good man! [:)]

I haven't kept up with developments since FC wrote his stuff. Do you know ... has anything been written that carries on with the Capra theme, as it were? I'd like to revisit said theme, if it's still up and running.

Great book. I read it when it was published. I've come across (but not read) a number of other books of the type, though I don't have a list of titles to offer.

K.




Musicmystery -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:40:34 PM)

Well, he wrote others, of course -- good stuff all.

There's a wealth of such books today, of widely varying quality. These two come to mind quickly:

The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav
The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot

Check out The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart

It's a nice read (with an overblown title) based on a variety of science reporting.

Maybe Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science by Werner Heisenberg

And Capra has written 16 other books. Start with The Turning Point.



dcnovice -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:40:47 PM)

I'll have to check it out. Do you need to know much physics to follow it?



Musicmystery -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 3:43:24 PM)

No, it's written for a general audience (assuming an education). I also read it when it was published, and I wasn't that old. High school or undergrad, don't remember now.



bounty44 -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 4:48:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

jesus was a creationist.

How do we know that?


in both matthew (19:4) and mark (10:6), in reference to questions about divorce jesus is recorded as having said "haven't you read...that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female..."" and "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

those are affirmations of genesis in general (in which the creation account is given) and more specifically, a quote of genesis 1:27

also, relative to Jesus as fully god, john writes (1:3), "through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." and paul does likewise in a number of places, Hebrews 1:2 for instance "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."

while im here, I can add, the word creation, or creator, or create (as concerns "creation") is used many dozens of times in both the ot and the nt, by a handful of biblical figures, most notably, moses, david, Isaiah, Mathew, mark, john and peter.





mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 5:22:11 PM)

Yeah, havent you read that we shall no suffer a false prophet to live (such as yourself)............? <<<<<<<<<<< the aposiopesis in your lying shitbreatng is devious and unxtian in that it perverts the context, which is typical of you lying nutsuckers, dogshit44. Paul was the Hebrew Hammer and definitely not xtian.



Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 5:41:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Any Fritjof Capra fans here? 'Tao of Physics' ... or Rupert Sheldrake, 'The Presence of the Past', morphic resonance ... that sort of thing? That whole vibe has always fascinated me. Very, very intriguing.


I might be, but I came to the resonance conclusion to the tune of 40 years ago so I never read any of those books, however I'd agree if any of those people have a theory that resonance is part of the fabric of the universe, extended some of teslas work.



vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 6:57:53 PM)

quote:

and I was clearing out my pond drain recently, and a fish swam by that had fur on it---I suppose if he's warm blooded he'll be needing it.

There are living fish with functional lungs.

There are fossils of reptiles with feathered wings.

There are fossils that show the evolution of the equine line.

Multiple examples of the evolution of eyes.

More importantly, there are multiple examples of genetic material shared by vertebrates.

Mutations are only one source of genetic variation in populations. Some genes may be duplicates or triplets, or more. Polyploid chromosomes are another mechanism. Also, swapping of sections of the DNA strands may occur. Many of these events are probably lethal to the progeny but some percentage (IDK) survive in a favorable environment. Furthermore, there are living examples of hybrid speciation among plants and animals.

Then, there is this . . .

The Five Worst Mass Extinctions

Time periods in the history of life on Earth during which exceptionally large numbers of species go extinct are called mass extinctions. These extinctions are quite different from the rate of extinction, which occurs even when the diversity of life is increasing. Many species vanished in five cataclysmic mass extinctions and today, 99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth are extinct.

http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html

Question: If there was a Creator of all living things why did he/she not protect them?

Edited to say I don't stand by the number 99.9% but I do stand by paleontology reporting of the mass extinctions. If they are evidence of divine creation it seems an awful waste, imo.





dcnovice -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 7:12:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

jesus was a creationist.

How do we know that?


in both matthew (19:4) and mark (10:6), in reference to questions about divorce jesus is recorded as having said "haven't you read...that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female..."" and "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

those are affirmations of genesis in general (in which the creation account is given) and more specifically, a quote of genesis 1:27

also, relative to Jesus as fully god, john writes (1:3), "through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." and paul does likewise in a number of places, Hebrews 1:2 for instance "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."

while im here, I can add, the word creation, or creator, or create (as concerns "creation") is used many dozens of times in both the ot and the nt, by a handful of biblical figures, most notably, moses, david, Isaiah, Mathew, mark, john and peter.

That's quite different from saying Jesus was a creationist--a loaded 20th-century term that would likely have no meaning to someone in first century Judea. Time-traveling Jesus of Nazareth to today and presuming we know what he'd make of modern science strikes me as a risky business.



Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/6/2017 8:41:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Question: If there was a Creator of all living things why did he/she not protect them?




um because extinction is part of 'all things' [8D]



vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/7/2017 7:54:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Question: If there was a Creator of all living things why did he/she not protect them?



um because extinction is part of 'all things' [8D]

No, fail. Extinction is an event, not a thing. It is the absence of things. It is when the last member of a species has died and there are no more.



WhoreMods -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/7/2017 8:01:13 AM)

Yes, but the whole point of creationism is ignoring the evidence and passing off preposterous bullshit as 'science" is it not? Rationality and evidence have no bearing on that one.



vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/7/2017 8:39:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Yes, but the whole point of creationism is ignoring the evidence and passing off preposterous bullshit as 'science" is it not? Rationality and evidence have no bearing on that one.

Intelligent Design (gussied up creationism) advocates claim to have evidence but that evidence was refuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The ID folks tried to get their version of creationism entered into the Dover, Pennsylvania schools biology classes. They offered the complexities of the human eye, our wound clotting system, and the mobile flagellum of some single celled organisms as examples of non-evolved design (creation) But evolution scientists easily disputed those claims.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875