Ahab Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 It is worse. Science becomes religion, subject to whatever belief that religion holds. IE; Observation the sky is blue. No it's not, its a pineapple because my religion says it is.Not much of a trade off, since some people take what scientists say as if that is the gospel truth.Yeah, I like the idea of neutering science on a general level and say that each person should form their own theories about what they're observing. It's what I usually do and it works very well for me.
changed Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) The problem is that there are no facts, only interpretations. I agree - the more we know, the more we know we don't know.Until we know everything, what we don't know could negate all that we thought we knew... the twist at the end of the movie, there is always some new piece of info that changes everything you've seen.Personally, I'm an engineer (and engineers are much smarter and better than mere scientists - you see, we actually apply knowledge, and everyone knows the vast chasm between things that are good in theory but in application.... LOL) interesting thing - there is "science vs. religion" but you will not hear the phrase "engineering vs. religion" ... the vast majority of engineers I know are religious .... comes down to that "applied" thing again.... scientists have some strange aversion to "application" because generally application destroys their idealistic simplistic theories... trouble with religion, if you don't apply it, you won't get it, and science by definition does not apply anything - they are wallflower observers.... Just talk the atheist scientists into being engineers instead, and the problem will be solved . Edited April 23, 2014 by changed 3
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Not much of a trade off, since some people take what scientists say as if that is the gospel truth.Yeah, I like the idea of neutering science on a general level and say that each person should form their own theories about what they're observing. It's what I usually do and it works very well for me. I've never taken science as gospel truth. I'm content with both. I observe the sky is blue. Therefore it must be because of light bouncing off the ocean.
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I agree - the more we know, the more we know we don't know.Until we know everything, what we don't know could negate all that we thought we knew... the twist at the end of the movie, there is always some new piece of info that changes everything you've seen.Personally, I'm an engineer (and engineers are much smarter and better than mere scientists - you see, we actually apply knowledge, and everyone knows the vast chasm between things that are good in theory but in application.... LOL) interesting thing - there is "science vs. religion" but you will not hear the phrase "engineering vs. religion" ... the vast majority of engineers I know are religious .... comes down to that "applied" thing again.... scientists have some strange aversion to "application" because generally application destroys their idealistic simplistic theories... trouble with religion, if you don't apply it, you won't get it, and science by definition does not apply anything - they are wallflower observers.... Just talk the atheist scientists into being engineers instead, and the problem will be solved . Holy cow I always get along great with engineers because they are totally practical. And I agree- making something work involves a level of creativity that scientists do not always have. "This is a cool principle- how can I make it into something?" Totally different mindset than "How can I learn more" I always love your posts- very spiritual- and yet you are obviously a very logical person. I love it!!! Phenomenal and unusual combination! 2
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I've never taken science as gospel truth. I'm content with both. I observe the sky is blue. Therefore it must be because of light bouncing off the ocean. Its blue because the gods ran out of red paint. They could only finish the sunsets.
Calm Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I wear flame retardant pants.Considering some of your comments you should make sure they are well insulated against electricity as well...and it would be considerate to wear a sign "if the sky suddenly darkens, move quickly away...."
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Its blue because the gods ran out of red paint. They could only finish the sunsets. Living in the west I sure see some beautiful sunsets. Some times interesting sunrises. Once when we were on the road to visit family. My wife and I saw stripes of white and red clouds with a corner of the sky still dark blue with stars shining.
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 I don't need it either. Just as I don't need physical evidence of Christs resurrection to believe it true. I'm not too sure that physical evidence is necessary for any belief. I wouldn't leave the Church over it either. I'm perfectly content with my faith, and my science. So I'll withhold judgement until God tells me otherwise. However that will just allow me more questions to be asked. The Jaredites were not the first people to come to the America's either.SEE Clovis Pointshttp://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-clovis-point-and-the-discovery-of-americas-first-culture-3825828/?no-istTheir dates predate the creation...what can I say? According to scripture the Jaredites were the first here after the flood.
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 Incorrect. Dating by Radioactive Decay is well established science.But its not verified truth.
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 And Rob is arguing for the elimination of all theories, only observations. Basically neutering science.No, just trying to draw a line in the sand between what is truth and hings we dont know to be true. Science is famous for establishing theory and then pulking the ol switch and then state it is fact. Then they feel they should police everyone elses beliefs not alliwing any other competing theories to be allowed.
Ahab Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 No, just trying to draw a line in the sand between what is truth and hings we dont know to be true. Science is famous for establishing theory and then pulking the ol switch and then state it is fact. Then they feel they should police everyone elses beliefs not alliwing any other competing theories to be allowed.There you go again mistaking what some people say as science. Science is not a person, so stop talking as if science is doing the talking. A step up would be to at least say "scientists" but then not all scientists say the same things, and it doesn't take a college degree to be a scientist, either.Just realize different people say different things and what most people are doing is trying to make sense out of what they are observing with some people having more true knowledge than some others.And also remember that charity is more important than knowledge.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 In case anyone is interested Rob is still wrong.
Walden Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 But its not verified truth. You mean like the verified truth that the first inhabitants of the Americas came by boat from the Middle East? Or the verified truth that the earth is 6000 years old? Or the verified truth that God created Adam and Eve, who are the source of all mankind? Or the verified truth that a global flood killed millions while Noah and a pair of every living creature on the planet floated it out on a large boat? This continuing thread solidifies my belief that truth is certainly relative and a matter of perspective.
mfbukowski Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 In case anyone is interested Rob is still wrong.Is he still wrong if no one is interested?
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Is he still wrong if no one is interested? Only if he is not a mime in a forest.
Rob Osborn Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 You mean like the verified truth that the first inhabitants of the Americas came by boat from the Middle East? Or the verified truth that the earth is 6000 years old? Or the verified truth that God created Adam and Eve, who are the source of all mankind? Or the verified truth that a global flood killed millions while Noah and a pair of every living creature on the planet floated it out on a large boat? This continuing thread solidifies my belief that truth is certainly relative and a matter of perspective. Its perfectly ok to have a belief system in whatever one wants. As long as it remains a belief and truths remain steadfats in truth and not yet proven hings remain in their proper light then there is no problem. Placing an age of millions of years on something and then saying it is a scientific truth is not good science.
katherine the great Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I agree - the more we know, the more we know we don't know.Until we know everything, what we don't know could negate all that we thought we knew... the twist at the end of the movie, there is always some new piece of info that changes everything you've seen.Personally, I'm an engineer (and engineers are much smarter and better than mere scientists - you see, we actually apply knowledge, and everyone knows the vast chasm between things that are good in theory but in application.... LOL) interesting thing - there is "science vs. religion" but you will not hear the phrase "engineering vs. religion" ... the vast majority of engineers I know are religious .... comes down to that "applied" thing again.... scientists have some strange aversion to "application" because generally application destroys their idealistic simplistic theories... trouble with religion, if you don't apply it, you won't get it, and science by definition does not apply anything - they are wallflower observers.... Just talk the atheist scientists into being engineers instead, and the problem will be solved . Or perhaps engineers are just better at compartmentalizing...
katherine the great Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Only if he is not a mime in a forest.Oh my gosh you're funny! 1
Bikeemikey Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Its perfectly ok to have a belief system in whatever one wants. As long as it remains a belief and truths remain steadfats in truth and not yet proven hings remain in their proper light then there is no problem. Placing an age of millions of years on something and then saying it is a scientific truth is not good science.I'll have some of your steadfats and not yet proven hings...
Rob Osborn Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 I'll have some of your steadfats and not yet proven hings... The problem though is that if you feed hings with steadfats of truth after midnight they urn into onsters. 1
Ahab Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Only if he is not a mime in a forest.I believe that is funny but I don't understand you.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Sounds like atheist propaganda. Interesting that he just provides opinions to try to debunk the global flood and then dismisses the evidence for a global flood because it doesn't align with his opinions. Let me just ask- if they are going to debunk a global flood don't you think they need to do some type of testing of sediments and how different sediments find different layers and if that be true would it not also be true for billions of dead things also? Did you watch all the video? So you say that he dismisses the evidence for a global flood, but why are you doing the same thing? Please explain what he presented. and many Christians believe in a local flood. Or at at least explain this Queen Nefertiti Rock in Arches
Bikeemikey Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 The problem though is that if you feed hings with steadfats of truth after midnight they urn into onsters.Touche
Recommended Posts