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.
Children only know what they learned or what logic they can reason ... And of course Jesus is not coming a second time, because most people will not see Him , BUT It is best that people do not have the mark of the beast or worship his image , as these people will be the ones who are Judged and will know the wrath of God to late ..... See science is science , and Religion is religion both are different arts .....
Science is about studying from our observations. Then from there we hypothesize and experiment. The thing is, our observations are limited. We can't observe everything from the distant past. There are things that were once observable that played a hand in our history, are no longer observable. So if the beginning point of all our sciences come from observation, there may be many blindspots we are working with. Einstein tried with all his might to come to a conclusion on how to join quantum mechanics with general relativity. Yet he couldn't. Of course now we have string theory as a possible answer to join the two, yet string theory itself seems like something right out of religion. Ultimately this tells us science is not enough to come to a complete understanding of our origins, but is only going half way.
Whether we can or can't observe what happened in the beginning, whether or not we will be able to in the future or not, nothing observable or otherwise suggests the presence of any god.
Science is about studying from our observations. Then from there we hypothesize and experiment. The thing is, our observations are limited. We can't observe everything from the distant past. There are things that were once observable that played a hand in our history, are no longer observable. So if the beginning point of all our sciences come from observation, there may be many blindspots we are working with. Einstein tried with all his might to come to a conclusion on how to join quantum mechanics with general relativity. Yet he couldn't. Of course now we have string theory as a possible answer to join the two, yet string theory itself seems like something right out of religion. Ultimately this tells us science is not enough to come to a complete understanding of our origins, but is only going half way.
This is such absurd stupidity that it really shouldn't even be anything but laughable in this day and age. Your argument is like saying that the detectives at a murder scene couldn't observe the murder happening and therefore all murder convictions have many blind spots. The truth is that, no, we don't have a video camera recording the activities of the distant past but the forensics data are implicitly telling us a very factual story. In fact, many of the forensic tools available to today's CSI teams were developed by scientists researching their own fields independent of murder investigations and are probably more reliable and credible than eyewitness accounts!
You can bask in your ignorance of science by proclaiming that "we weren't there to witness it so I get to cop out of a responsible viewpoint and wallow in my own pathetic ignorance of science to promote a farcical and childish view of the origins of the universe" but, in the end, that's just an irresponsible excuse for an irresponsible train of thought.
As well, there are certain aspects of science that we don't fully understand (like your Einstein quip). But, you make it sound like what we currently know is the end of what we ever will know. Two years ago, we had the mathematical calculations and behavioral predictions of a Higgs Boson. We needed extraordinarily powerful equipment to meld our calculations to our observations but we finally did see a five-sigma (that's 5 standard deviations) event that fit just about perfectly with the Higgs model. At this point, based on the "spin" of what they found, they will either declare it a graviton or a Higgs Boson. Either will be a huge deal for the scientific community.
Quantum mechanics probably sounded just as eerily supernatural in the early 20th century as string theory does to us today. But, repeated test after repeated test has confirmed the reality of quantum mechanics. The same can't be said of string theory but even if string theory is a horrible failure, it doesn't spell the end of our knowledge. What is it with you fundamentalists and not being able to recognize that?
Let me please add this example. When I was in college the first time, all those years ago, Electron Microscopy was the cutting edge toy for observing and measuring the atomic world. What we had then in our schools is nothing compared to the newer atomic microscopes. This technology was the nail in the proverbial coffin led for a certain populace who wanted to reject atomic theory. As one rather bright Texan told me "The Bible don't say nothin about atoms so they ain't real. That's all made up by the devil" Well, this proves that not only are they real, but what we theorized about them, from chemical reactions, mathematical formula, chemical engineering, was Correct and accurate all along. We can literally look at atoms and molecules and seee that we were right all along. Our testing, without the aid of even electron microscopes, demonstrated a scientific theory which has become the basis for all chemistry today
Which shows we do in fact know a lot more about our world and how it works than some people want to admit.
Now consider this: We do not know everything...yet, and when we think we have figured everything out, we will find that there is more to learn Which makes science such a fascinating field. Which is why our best and brightest children will flock to it, to be part of the excitement of those unknown frontiers.
It has been mentioned that religion and science are two separate entities. Of course they are. But religion attempts to use MYTH and superstition to explain the world, while science uses the scientific process to explain the world. Religion tries to attribute everything to an invisible deity, of which science cannot measure or verify. God cannot be pr oven, demonstrated, or even verified. Which is why most scientists are atheists. Which is why most intellectuals are atheists. Which is why I bring up the point of how I am raising my kids. Why clutter and distract their minds with nonsense?
When anyone, anywhere proves god, I would be interested. When anyone gives a demonstration, an experiment, a reasonable argument, I am interested. But in all my years, I have yet to hear one. I have yet to hear a valid reason as to the why and how of "god". I see a lot of mythic thinking, a lot of superstitious traditions and a plethora of wishful thinking, which lurks just beside desperation next to fear, but I see no reason and no evidence. But when I read a book written by an established scientist, such as a professor of physics at a major university, and I see his or her references to prior testing, prior theories, then I take note.
Which I submit this as a point., In science, all science, we abandon that which does not work. In medicine, we had a promising new drug hit the market some 23 years ago. It was supposed to be the great non-narcotic non-addictive pain medicine. It was being presented at neuro-psych conventions, it was listed in ads in all medical journals. But now, in 2012, it has been all but abandoned except in a very few cases. Why ? Because the bad outweighed the good. This medication inhibited platelet function, causing massive bleeding. It also frequently exasperated symptoms of asthma. And it had a serious allergic consequences. Most physicians I know do not use it.
Likewise, many of us grew up in religious families, and for a while, as kids, we might have had the monkey mind mentality that God was in control of everything and that everything happened according to God, that prayer worked etc. We abandoned this because we found that it did not work. It was unhealthy. The bad outweighed the good. And we have evidence, we have reports, testimonies, we have volumes and volumes of written accounts of people who were part of religions in America who left because of the abuse, the disappointment, the negativity. And we have solic scientific proof, call based on testing , that prayer does not work. And we have no scientific evidence of a god. We have no evidence of an afterlife, in fact pretty much all scientific evidence we have, suggests the opposite. So who do we follow? The mythic religious fanatic, who loathes in fear hoping that one day some magical guy will assend from the heaven and fix everything, or the humanist, who teaches his kids to learn everything they can and use it to help others?
For me, that is a very easy choice. But I think of myself as a man of science and reason. nerdy though it may be.
This is such absurd stupidity that it really shouldn't even be anything but laughable in this day and age. Your argument is like saying that the detectives at a murder scene couldn't observe the murder happening and therefore all murder convictions have many blind spots. The truth is that, no, we don't have a video camera recording the activities of the distant past but the forensics data are implicitly telling us a very factual story. In fact, many of the forensic tools available to today's CSI teams were developed by scientists researching their own fields independent of murder investigations and are probably more reliable and credible than eyewitness accounts!
You can bask in your ignorance of science by proclaiming that "we weren't there to witness it so I get to cop out of a responsible viewpoint and wallow in my own pathetic ignorance of science to promote a farcical and childish view of the origins of the universe" but, in the end, that's just an irresponsible excuse for an irresponsible train of thought.
As well, there are certain aspects of science that we don't fully understand (like your Einstein quip). But, you make it sound like what we currently know is the end of what we ever will know. Two years ago, we had the mathematical calculations and behavioral predictions of a Higgs Boson. We needed extraordinarily powerful equipment to meld our calculations to our observations but we finally did see a five-sigma (that's 5 standard deviations) event that fit just about perfectly with the Higgs model. At this point, based on the "spin" of what they found, they will either declare it a graviton or a Higgs Boson. Either will be a huge deal for the scientific community.
Quantum mechanics probably sounded just as eerily supernatural in the early 20th century as string theory does to us today. But, repeated test after repeated test has confirmed the reality of quantum mechanics. The same can't be said of string theory but even if string theory is a horrible failure, it doesn't spell the end of our knowledge. What is it with you fundamentalists and not being able to recognize that?
I'm actually excited about string theory and what it indicates. Yet going back to your crime scene example, this is very much different from our observations of the universe. Firstly, our idea of the big bang, mostly comes from our observation of the spreading universe. Who's to say the universe began to expand from a tiny point? That is our assumption we go on. Also, 96% of the universe is made up of things we can't observe fully. So if we are to compare this thing to a crime scene, the only thing left at the scene is a chalk outline of the body. No DNA, no murder weapon, no body.
Actually these scientists can be counted, nearly on one hand. Over 90% of the members of the Academy of Science are atheists. There is no evidence that science is NOT the end-all-be-all, so your statement is folly.
If this is true, why are there so many things that pure science cannot explain? They cannot even explain what electricity truly is, or how it works, and you expect me to believe that science knows *everything*. Please. They cannot explain how a bee communicates with it's hive-mates. It cannot explain how birds can migrate to the exact same location year after year without benefit of a compass or GPS; it cannot explain clairvoyance or premonitions. There is so much that science doesn't understand or know, it's really quite shocking.
Which I submit this as a point., In science, all science, we abandon that which does not work. In medicine, we had a promising new drug hit the market some 23 years ago.
Sometimes we abandon that which does not work, and sometimes we revisit that which does not work, because we find that it works for something else. That being said, I have never seen prayer or religion work, outside of a placebo effect.
(They're using thalidomide with much success to treat certain types of cancers, like multiple myeloma)
If this is true, why are there so many things that pure science cannot explain? They cannot even explain what electricity truly is, or how it works, and you expect me to believe that science knows *everything*. Please. They cannot explain how a bee communicates with it's hive-mates. It cannot explain how birds can migrate to the exact same location year after year without benefit of a compass or GPS; it cannot explain clairvoyance or premonitions. There is so much that science doesn't understand or know, it's really quite shocking.
20yrsinBranson
I didn't say that science knows everything. But, so far no other legitimate alternatives have been shown to answer the questions we currently do not know. And, nothing so far discounts the possibility that science might eventually be able to provide these answers.
BTW, electricity CAN be explained. This sounds very similar to the theist who declared to me yesterday that we don't know how the Earth was formed.
. That evolution toward a greater good. And we need no GOD for that. Perhaps this represents the ultimate symbolism of the victory of science over religion, .
It can be argued that there is no need for a man and a woman to have sex in order to produce a child. Happens all the time. Yet the fact remains that the vast majority of children come to be thru a man and a woman having sex.
The "no need for God" arguement is nothing more than a mental excercise. Proves nothing.
Huh? What the heck? Geez. It's time for Science 001 again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
You have too much confidence in science. Science is very limited, if you want to know the whole truth. Science is about letting answers come to you, but it's not that simple. If you want to know the whole truth, you will have to be much more violent than that. You have to get out and search for them. You think we can know the history of the entire universe just by our observations? Are you sure you are not missing things you need to come to a complete conclusion?
How, pray tell, is an investigative process limited as you so self-assuredly claim?
Science is, very simply, a process by which questions that will always come up can be reasonably and defensibly answered. You are of that sad religious ilk who thinks "science" is some sort of biased ENTITY. This is always a clear indicator that the claimant of such voodoo nonsense is clearly out of touch with, and illiterate of, the entire Scientific Method.
I'd suggest, for your own good and self-worth, you tke the time to step back from the smothering dogma of organized (but truly frightened) religious defenses and denials, and try reading at the very least a Grade 10 Introduction to Science textbook. (and seriously, I mean; don't tell me you took science in Grd 10. because if you did, you must have been that guy in the back more interested in the girls and not interested in learning how science works to provide reliable answers.)
A process that has been tried and tested, revised and evolved (I know, I know, that word, even the small "e" version, always makes Christians shudder...) as an ongoing improving PROCESS, is not thus "very limited".
" You have to get out and search for them." Huh? What do you think scientists, using that reliable process, do literally every hour of every day? Make stuff up?
Next silly statement?
"You think we can know the history of the entire universe just by our observations?" Where did you that one? Out of a cereal box?
And finally, to top it all off...
"Are you sure you are not missing things you need to come to a complete conclusion?" again, which notball pseudo-scientist has EVER made the claim that we have everything we need to always come to a complete conclusion?
But just as a simple example that perhaps even you might understand:
I"m going to hypothesize that the earth is round, and not flat. "Nonsense!!!" yowl the now thoroughly frightened priests and churchly administrators. You know the type; the ones who never use logic or factual observation to prove anything, knowing what it will do to their peon-management overall story.
OK: let's test the hypothesis, but we'll use modern technology (the earth was proven to be quite spherical, and not flat, literally centuries ago, but this is a fairy tale to illustrate how spectacularly wrong your assumptions are...).
So... we look out the window of the International Space Station, and make some rather simple laser and radar measurements. Ergo, in rather short order, coupled with the keen and glaring observation that we also add in to our data stream, that, by golly, it also looks quite round huh, and as we continue to look out that window for a few hourts as the earth hurtles along below us, we NEVER see an edge or a giant turtle holding it all up. Hmmm.
So, we come to a REASONABLE CONCLUSION. Is it flat and we did something wrong in our observations? Or... could it be some sort of Godly optical illusion? Well now, being truly unbiased scientists, we know that of course, but it's also VERY unlikely, wouldn't you agree?
So, we take what we have and make our reasonable conclusion. We also understand, as with all claims thus determined by that reliable method, that they are always fully open to further and later evaluation, and that science NEVER makes absolute claims, unless it's of such a simple nature that such a determination is likely never going to change. (As in, for example, and assuming there's no catastrophic Jupiter-sized asteroid inbound to literally reform us into a flat object, it always will be spherical, until it's roasted into oblivion when our star finally burns itself out.)
So, as I've shown, your understanding of science as other than a simple tool is entirely biased, untrue and, I'll assume, based on whatever false claims the church has purposefully claimed as absolutely true, while in fact they know them to be patently false.
Such are the tactics of the truly frightened. It's precisely why the world's dictators have traditionally burned libraries to the ground and stopped all public discourse and education. How wonderful! PTL!
Enjoy rethinking it all if you dare: you'll be the better for it, Heavenese!
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.
Huh? What the heck? Geez. It's time for Science 001 again!
