Religon VS Science

Pro christian members find small, insignificant flaws in science that they manipulate to their advantage. Fact is, there will be some flaws in scientific research. People make mistakes. But the majority of scientific research still holds.

You people grasp at the crumbs that fall down from science, like rats.

Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn appart by science

The wrath of science is tearing religion apart.

Its all a matter of time before it dies.

Originally posted by The thinker
Pro christian members find small, insignificant flaws in science that they manipulate to their advantage. Fact is, there will be some flaws in scientific research. People make mistakes. But the majority of scientific research still holds.

You people grasp at the crumbs that fall down from science, like rats.

Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn appart by science

The wrath of science is tearing religion apart.

Its all a matter of time before it dies.

What I find odd ofttimes, is that these people will find very small, and rather insignificant flaws in science, that don't impact the conclusion, and say that that is evidence that science is wrong. Yet if someone points to a flaw that opens a gaping question as to the validity of their interpretation of the Bible, it is brushed aside.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I never said ID is a pseudoscience. I know it is a theory put forward by some who feel uncomfortable with the idea we exist on pure chance (ooo, inflammatory) that relies far to much on uncertain areas of evolution and things like probability (ooo, inflammatory)

ID is a theory was put forth long before the theory of evolution was established, that post alone proves your ignorant of ID's origins.Id originates from greek philosophy, The Philosophical arguments such as the Logos which is the described by the likes of Heraclitus in the 5th century B.C. Plato later on described another theory which revolved around the natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Foucoult proposed the sea could be turned into lemonade. Key word: proposed. Proposed. Tesla didn't really achieve anything with them while he was alive. People had been dreaming of weather control long before Tesla came up with it, and none of it has materialised - why, because if it is possible we are not at that point yet. Fact: Just because you dislike how science is handling itself does not mean that that science is somehow holding down things like cars that run on air and the cure to aids. Fact: Just because you like the sound of theories Tesla made does not in fact mean they can be, or ever will be realised - quite possibly because they are absurd of pipe dreams. Edison, Da Vinci, many great scientists came up with theories about things that, in retrospect, turned out to be little more then fanciful hopes, or down right madness.

Absurd pipe dreams, they said the samething to just about any scientist that made an "Absurd" claim, such as alexander Graham Bell and his telephone. Tesla's research is still being applied today yet you for some magically reason believe science has advance to far without him. the man had florescent lightbulbs 50 years before they were introduced ion the market, H.A.A.R.P. is completely founded on his work,Tesla built a giant coil that produced 10 million volts of artificial lightning ( and is the world record holder for the largest man made lightning bolt ever 130 feet). Yeah we sure advance passed him 🙄

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

But I am pleased you think that if Tesla and the set up from his time got dropped here that he would be trouncing the massive scientific organisations of today. Seems realistic. Then maybe we could drop a Roman legion in to do battle against a battalion of US armor. I imagine you would like to put $100 on the Roman Legion winning yes?

But anyway, to the original question stemming from Bertrand Russel: do you truly believe that scinece has been shown to be more violent and oppressive then religion?

Science has just replace religion as a dictator, Which claims they know the knowable and whatever does not concide with their thoeries doesn't exsist.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Technically since it is you claiming it is real it is up to you to provide the proof. Governments and scientific institutes had been testing those kind of things since the late 40's. And most of those programs had been mothballed or completly discontinued by the late 80s. Why? Because none of them produced tangible evidence that it was true, or that there was even any reason to continue research. So why don't you post some info from government agencies and scientific institutes that supports your claim? And I mean actually evidence, not the circumstantial stuff Deano and others post. Research reports, testimony of chief scientists... that kind of thing. Make me wonder why if there was so much evidence the research was mostly cut off?

Research stoped LOL, the report from iron moutain revieled that the CIA was still working on mind control, hell the cia even admitted to the public in the new york times in 1980.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And that makes no sense. We give a planet a name, or we leave it with one it was given before - we aren't calling it a god. We need to name things for the purpose of understanding and education, we can't just go "that thing in the sky next to the other thing in the sky near another thing in the sky." Much easier to name something. And there is a difference between worshipping something you know is a natural phenomena, and worshipping something you think is the act of a God, or the god itself. Natural phenomena are not acts of god, nor gods themselves.

And this brings us back to my point, the ancients lived in a conditions much hard in comparison to ours. of course they would worship something that, helps them predict when to crop, provides them light, and is responsible for lfe itself. hence why the sun god is the most important diety in many ancient religion. worship and symbolism does not change there achievements. which is the point your trying to make.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Once again you are trying to change the argument. You claim it is absurd man came from apes, I say it is just as absurd, if not more so, to say that man was the result of some god spitting on some dust.

Statistacally speaking it's absurd for life to orignate from lifeless matter but, flukist logic dictates as long as there exsist a small chance it could have happened, how cute.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Oh yes. Erich Von Daniken. Author of "Chariots of the Gods." The man who believes that human affairs have been influence bu ETs since before history began. The man whose interpretations of hieroglyphs do not match up with those of any other reputable epigrapher or archaeologist.

They don't match any reputable "epigrapher or archaeologist.", when you refute someone you give an evidence of their work and why it's wrong, not someone disagreeing with them.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

How much research have I done? I am currently in the third year of university for my course in psychology/psychiatry, and I get a certain number of elective spots which I dedicate to history (Roman and Chinese being my favorites.) I like to think this makes me well read. And I am afraid to say that the historical community as a whole finds Danikens claims as unproven and down right absurd at times. They accuse him of operating from an erroneous hypothesis based upon incorrectly interpreted facts, they claim he is far to willing to draw his own conclusions from vague historical sources. They note he has been caught up in many frauds (including the falsification of archaeological artifacts.) They note he operates under the outdated historical stance of eurocentrism, and possibly a theological one.

I never asked for your credentials, I asked for your research notes on the subject at hand 😆 and you just stated the opinon of the historical community, I wonder why you didn't recite your own opinion on the matter? is it because you don't know his research and rely on someone else's opinion on it,if you wish to debate the "Ancient astronaut theory I'll gladly do it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Now I have put up with you again and again saying I am just following someone else's claim. That to express any support of a historical or scientific stance is an expression of ignorance. Tell me.... how is what you are doing here any different? You seem to have chucked you support firmly behind Daniken who can claim virtually no support from the historical community. Who, as Sagan noted "needs extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims" - evidence he can't produce. Other then his hieroglyphs which no body has been able to say support his stance. Seems to me you are being hypocritical:

I just cited his work, like once I never said he's was correct. I agree he may have a point but it's yet to be seen. hence why I study on my own and look up fact, as opposed to just taking up a stance because the historical community says so 😆

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Oh yes. Get a second opinion - how about the fact that the vast majority of the historical community do not support his claims? So why don't you just make a nice long list of all the people that could be called credible who do, and all the evidence you base it on? I know he has supporters, but they are no where near as many or as credited and reputed as the veritable legions who think he is a crank. Because it seems to me you are just following what someone else says.

I don't rely on people's opinions for work and a second opinion means one that disagree's with your point of view; I've done that before.
If you disagree with mr.Dankien, give me an explanation on why his work is flawed as opposed to saying "The historical society said so". what's the point of you citing your credentials if you can't even debate for yourself.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
How much research have you done at all? You make all these bold claims about science and how the scientific community works, how much science are you actually involved in?

Enough to be apparently oblivious that more people probably know of Tesla than they do of the woman who helped discover the structure of DNA?

Enough to not know what constitutes scientific theory, to not care that there is no proof behind and still claim its somehow science?

Enough to know absolutely nothing about the processes involved in submission of scientific literature?

Which esteemed institute did you obtain your credentials in order to be such an eminent authority on the scientific process and community?

Like I said before Credentials don't mean nothing to me, a persons work should speak for him or her self.

Originally posted by The thinker
Pro christian members find small, insignificant flaws in science that they manipulate to their advantage. Fact is, there will be some flaws in scientific research. People make mistakes. But the majority of scientific research still holds.

You people grasp at the crumbs that fall down from science, like rats.

Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn appart by science

The wrath of science is tearing religion apart.

Its all a matter of time before it dies.

No one seems to reply to my comment.

Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Extra credit for knowing the technique she used. 🙂

X-ray crystallography, I believe. And Watson and Crick took advantage of her work.

Originally posted by The thinker
No one seems to reply to my comment.

Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?

Science is not tearing religion apart. Hardcore, thick headed, religious fanatics are being torn apart by science. People only see these fanatics having trouble with science, and so they make generalized statements like:

"Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?"

"Its all a matter of time before it dies."

"Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn apart by science"

So, my response would be:

Fact is, there will be some flaws in religion. People make mistakes. But the majority of religion still holds.

Originally posted by Regret
Science is not tearing religion apart. Hardcore, thick headed, religious fanatics are being torn apart by science. People only see these fanatics having trouble with science, and so they make generalized statements like:

"Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?"

"Its all a matter of time before it dies."

"Science has destroyed so many belief systems, things that people thought were mysterious have been torn apart by science"

So, my response would be:

Fact is, there will be some flaws in religion. People make mistakes. But the majority of religion still holds.

Originally posted by The thinker
No one seems to reply to my comment.

Science is tearing religion apart, what will stop it?

No science is taking religions place, Empirical science is the only evidence of many theories which people rant like it's fact. and whatever isn't taken seriously is dismissed.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Like I said before Credentials don't mean nothing to me, a persons work should speak for him or her self.

I am very glad of the double negative there, otherwise I'd think you were completely worthless.

Credentials show how they went about learning. It is important because knowing where a person learned what they know impacts the validity of what they claim. The detractor that went to the "Christian Theological School for the Downplaying of Scientific Evidence" would probably not have a valid understanding of the subject of science. Now, if the detractor went to MIT, I would probably be more likely to consider them to have a valid understanding of the subject of science, and thus their opinion would hold more weight. Now, schools aren't always the only source for credential. If you worked with a respected exper in a field of study, and you dealt with the subject in this work, you might have a strong understanding of the subject.

Originally posted by FeceMan
QFT, QFE.

Sorry, I am not sure as to what those mean.

Originally posted by Regret
I am very glad of the double negative there, otherwise I'd think you were completely worthless.

Credentials show how they went about learning. It is important because knowing where a person learned what they know impacts the validity of what they claim.

Why can't someone's work prove, what there capable of instead of their institution? I don't care if your a bum on the street. if you have valid work with solid facts, than you should have a point.

Originally posted by Regret

The detractor that went to the "Christian Theological School for the Downplaying of Scientific Evidence" would probably not have a valid understanding of the subject of science. Now, if the detractor went to MIT, I would probably be more likely to consider them to have a valid understanding of the subject of science, and thus their opinion would hold more weight. Now, schools aren't always the only source for credential. If you worked with a respected exper in a field of study, and you dealt with the subject in this work, you might have a strong understanding of the subject.

No ofense, but that's bias, someone's work should give them merit more so than their school.

Originally posted by Regret
Sorry, I am not sure as to what those mean.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Why can't someone's work prove, what there capable of instead of their institution? I don't care if your a bum on the street. if you have valid work with solid facts, than you should have a point.

My response was to this:

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Like I said before Credentials don't mean nothing to me, a persons work should speak for him or her self.

You were saying credentials were worthless. That is a foolish opinion.

Someone's work can show what they are capable of. It just requires a more stringent examination of their methodology if they do not have the educational backing. The education shows dedication to a manner of work, the further they progressed the stronger their dedication to that manner of work.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No ofense, but that's bias, someone's work should give them merit more so than their school.

Work can give them merit, but it does not always. What gives their work merit is the references thy used for their work. If they did not refer to someone else's work they probably wasted a lot of time doing redundant work. It is possible that they are a fool that stumbled on something if they worked this way. It does not necessarily lend them merit, but it could.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Quoted for truth, quoted for emphasis.

Alright, thanks.

So they were in agreement then?

Originally posted by Regret

You were saying credentials were worthless. That is a foolish opinion.

Someone's work can show what they are capable of. It just requires a more stringent examination of their methodology if they do not have the educational backing. The education shows dedication to a manner of work, the further they progressed the stronger their dedication to that manner of work.

But education DOES NOT Guarantee anything but a sturdy background, the work is always evidence. I say it's foolish to base a debate on credentials. If the persons work has solid irrefutable facts why would his credentials matter?

Originally posted by Regret

Work can give them merit, but it does not always. What gives their work merit is the references thy used for their work. If they did not refer to someone else's work they probably wasted a lot of time doing redundant work. It is possible that they are a fool that stumbled on something if they worked this way. It does not necessarily lend them merit, but it could.

The Ends justify the means, Yes your right it important to have references but that doesn't change the fact that new laws will appear to replace the old.

What if Science is a way of explaining what God did?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But education DOES NOT Guarantee anything but a sturdy background, the work is always evidence. I say it's foolish to base a debate on credentials. If the persons work has solid irrefutable facts why would his credentials matter?

And how many people here will be posting their names and work for you to see that it is valid? I am a Psychologist. I have studied through doctorate level education, plus post doc. Now, given this, my statements should hold more work than many of those here as to psychology and neurobiology than most of those here, if for no other reason than my education. I also have work, but I will not be giving my name out for you to research my work. You will have to rely on the knowledge that I have done the education.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Ends justify the means, Yes your right it important to have references but that doesn't change the fact that new laws will appear to replace the old.

Never disagreed here, I only state that those that have the education probably know more than those that do not.

Originally posted by mattrab
What if Science is a way of explaining what God did?

Like it was said before, science and religion were the same before the "Age of Enlightment". then a new form of science which dwelled in materialism and scientisim was born.

Originally posted by Regret
And how many people here will be posting their names and work for you to see that it is valid? I am a Psychologist. I have studied through doctorate level education, plus post doc. Now, given this, my statements should hold more work than many of those here as to psychology and neurobiology than most of those here, if for no other reason than my education. I also have work, but I will not be giving my name out for you to research my work. You will have to rely on the knowledge that I have done the education.

You can state your profession all you want, Like I said credentials don't verify nothing. except that you were educated by an institution on a particular Field.

Originally posted by Regret

Never disagreed here, I only state that those that have the education probably know more than those that do not.

An education on a Field doesn't equate to credentials, just because you went to school to study a Field and I choose to learn it on my own doesn't mean your more versed than person who didn't.