Challenge: name one instance when Science was wrong and Religion was right. (religious leader, believers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is the discovery of Noah`s Ark by the French Explorer Fernand Navarra who visited the site where this boat is on the mountain Ararat in 1952-1969 made four visits and actually brought back human hand hewn and squared cut wood from the boat where it sits in a French museum today ignored by modern science, and most people who believe in doubting any evidence .....
oooohhhhh, there was a boat made out of wood, that proves the Bible!
Quote:
The site is off limits by the Turkey government as a national archaeological and off limits ......
Convenient; no experts can study it.
Quote:
Then there is the physical miracles where Christian Healing ministries of Lord Jesus healed people of ailment that science confess as no answer, and impossible to be helped by the medical communities , but people are being healed from cancer, aids , diabetes, blindness, deafness, physical deformities are being healed, and these miracles are ignored and even ridiculed and denied, but the miracles are going on despite the indifference ..... So if science where to claim that Jesus healing ministries is possible then science would be right here .....
If miracles were real and divine, the middle ages would not have an average life expectancy of around 30. After all, they were far more religious than us, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairieparson
Religion and science don't mix, so its kind of a dumb question. Science is about the material world.
Wrong. Science is about the material world because so far, that's the only "world" known to exist. There's no reason why the scientific method cannot be applied to some hypothetical spiritual realm, or why the existence of this world cannot be questioned just like the existence of flying monkeys on mars.
But hey; still nobody has won the prize money. You guys are using up all your brain power to come up with singular examples of religion allegedly triumphing over science, while I can casually cite two dozen in the opposite direction off the top of my head.
I think that is not a particularly useful question, because the nature of science is to change with new information. Science is wrong all the time. It is just that science admits it and moves on dogmatic religion does not.
As to an example of science being wrong and religion being right and then science changing you have auras. Pagans and other religions have believed in auras for a long time. Science initially rejected the idea, then Kirlian photography was developed and auras were proven to exist. We now know that auras are essentially electricity generated by living organisms and other objects.
Granted this is relatively unsurprising since if you have a partner and put a modest amount of effort into it you can feel the other person's aura. If you want to test it yourself find a partner go to a comfortable, quite place with few distractions, sit across from your partner and put your hands out palms up. Have them put their hands about an in or two above your hands palms down and you should be able to feel it.
Oh brother!
Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
We had a friend who did this exact same thing with us, claiming he could make us see our "aura"... what a crock. It was embarrassing for all of us when his little "experiment" was a complete failure. Give me a friggin break!
The thread is usefully pointing out the fact that there is currently a one direction conversation between science and religion which results in a constant slow erosion of the latter by the former.
As the OP suggests if you have any doubt of this simply ask yourself two questions:
1) Name a case where once we had a religious answer to a question for which NOW the best answer to that same question is from science.
2) Name a case where once we had a science answer to a question for which NOW the best answer to that same question is from Religion.
I can think of many... many many... examples for point 1. I have yet to find a single example for point 2.
Stumbling Along with the stumbling Tumble-Weed heads...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
The contemporary science of psychology teaches in keeping with an ability made possible by science that an individual can go around bopping anyone that is fancied if a condom is used. Religion teach's otherwise and is right... Problem with the science is no one wants to use the condom because it contradicts the freedom...so the big scientific idea even if on every bedpost in the world will not defeat the many bugs and disease's which want to take over, they.. the greatest army in the world...here's an update on another and many more to come added ranks to the disease'e of the worlds military. So this clearly shows the science which people think is on the ball is for the birds on this one, no doubt about it....look here, Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea: Is The Antibiotic Era Coming To An End? (VIDEO)
Quick note: This amazing response is your idea of proving that science's ideas and/or accomplishments were categorically disproven, absolutely, by some alternate religious position?
One wonders: Did you read the OP's question & challenge?
The arrival of a drug-resistant bacterium is simple and no-nonsense proof of functioning organistic Evolution, as a quick DNA mapping would clearly show. The little "bu&&ers" so to speak, adapt through chance mutation and subsequent ultra-rapid reproduction.
Those brave new few that survived the initial bacterium-specific antibody drug get to start their own brave new world. This has been proven time and again, in the petri dishes of all the world's bacteriology labs.
And the alternate Absolute religious position? Oh? I see: God didn't want the drugs to work, yup! He waved his magic wand and?
(But then you can please explain why all those initial and the newer designer antibiotics have worked so well over the years! Like the original Penicillin, and so on. They have only begin to have problems due to th relentless effects of ongoing Evolution of the bacterium organism's functioning DNA and it's growing cell wall resistance to the targeting effect of antibiotics. Perhaps you might do a bit of actual reading upo first? NO? Well, in truth, I'm not surprised at such a predictable response...)
We had a friend who did this exact same thing with us, claiming he could make us see our "aura"... what a crock. It was embarrassing for all of us when his little "experiment" was a complete failure. Give me a friggin break!
You are about 70 years too late on that one. As I said the technique for photographing it has been know about since 1939. I mean all you have to do is believe your lying eyes. Hell if you don't trust your lying eyes do the experiment I laid out for you and you can feel the other person's aura. If you think about it it is not at all surprising that humans give off bio electrical energy since we are basically living tissue filled with water.
Granted this is relatively unsurprising since if you have a partner and put a modest amount of effort into it you can feel the other person's aura. If you want to test it yourself find a partner go to a comfortable, quite place with few distractions, sit across from your partner and put your hands out palms up. Have them put their hands about an in or two above your hands palms down and you should be able to feel it.
A terrible suggestion for an experiment. The brain has ways of "feeling" things that have not happened yet. If you see someones hands coming close to yours you can often "feel" it before any contact has occured due to areas of the brain that pre-fire.
It is similar to mirror neurons in this regard too. If you for example see someone cut their finger with a knife, many of the nerves in your own brain for feeling your own finger being cut with a knife fire too.
I think to correct your experiment therefore you should do what I did when I heard someone else make the same claims as you. Do randomised blind testing and compare it to randomised not blind testing.
That is do the test as you suggest, but also do it with no touching, with actual touching, with random touching and more. Then repeat it all with the people who should be "feeling" the touch but this time blind fold them.
What you will find... as I did... is that you are completely right. You will "feel" it despite there being an inch or two gap so no touching is actually happening. Those blindfolded however feel either nothing... or they feel it randomly... sometimes at the correct time... sometimes when no one is even near them at all. They think they should be feeling something... so they do... even when there is not just 2 inches in the gap but 10 metres.
The results of THAT experiment rather than yours rubbishes your idea of an aura and instead suggests that the "feeling" is connected with areas of the brain reacting to sight and/or expectations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stumbling Along with the stumbling Tumble-Weed heads...
