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.
I'm sorry, but while many of your posts mention science, most are not scientific. They're mostly personal beliefs that you simply state. That's not science.
I am sorry, but if you deny that science offers counters claims instead of just saying eople are wrong, you don't know science.
Science keeps changing, so you can never really trust it. Good luck finding any scientist on skeptic side who will ever acknowledge this.
At least religion has worked using the same texts for millennia (in some cases). You can read the Psalms and Proverbs today and replace "THE LORD" with your preferred entity or idea, and everything in it is still true.
Science keeps changing, so you can never really trust it. Good luck finding any scientist on skeptic side who will ever acknowledge this.
At least religion has worked using the same texts for millennia (in some cases). You can read the Psalms and Proverbs today and replace "THE LORD" with your preferred entity or idea, and everything in it is still true.
Not at all.
That's the very purpose of science -- to rarely (if ever) say, "We have the final answer". To always be looking at new data and discoveries and to evolve in our thinking.
That's opposed to going to a methodist church (for example) and hearing the same scriptures and virtually the same sermons that I heard back in the 1950s. You see that as admirable. I see it as being stuck in the distant past. And, as proof that the events of the bible are not relevant since we do not see similar things happening today. It's fine to talk about miracles. How come they all happened 2,000 or more years ago?
I'm sorry, but while many of your posts mention science, most are not scientific. They're mostly personal beliefs that you simply state. That's not science.
I said to you, science makes counter claims and does not just sit around telling people they are wrong.
you may point out where that is wrong.
and, you may offer a counter claim for people thinking they are connected to a larger more complex system and we can compare our two claims. you know, since you are all science and stuff.
or, if you are afraid to make a claim, tell me where me stating that we are connected to a larger more complex system is not accepted in scientific communities.
Science keeps changing, so you can never really trust it. Good luck finding any scientist on skeptic side who will ever acknowledge this.
At least religion has worked using the same texts for millennia (in some cases). You can read the Psalms and Proverbs today and replace "THE LORD" with your preferred entity or idea, and everything in it is still true.
trusting science is like trusting accounting or cooking.
I said to you, science makes counter claims and does not just sit around telling people they are wrong.
you may point out where that is wrong.
and, you may offer a counter claim for people thinking they are connected to a larger more complex system and we can compare our two claims. you know, since you are all science and stuff.
or, if you are afraid to make a claim, tell me where me stating that we are connected to a larger more complex system is not accepted in scientific communities.
Sometimes I think you argue for the sake of arguing.
I've never said that all posts need to be scientific. You brought that into the discussion when you tried to relate counter-claims with science. I'm simply pointing out that you make MANY claims and counter-claims that are not a bit scientific.
Science keeps changing, so you can never really trust it. Good luck finding any scientist on skeptic side who will ever acknowledge this.
At least religion has worked using the same texts for millennia (in some cases). You can read the Psalms and Proverbs today and replace "THE LORD" with your preferred entity or idea, and everything in it is still true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Not at all.
That's the very purpose of science -- to rarely (if ever) say, "We have the final answer". To always be looking at new data and discoveries and to evolve in our thinking.
That's opposed to going to a methodist church (for example) and hearing the same scriptures and virtually the same sermons that I heard back in the 1950s. You see that as admirable. I see it as being stuck in the distant past. And, as proof that the events of the bible are not relevant since we do not see similar things happening today. It's fine to talk about miracles. How come they all happened 2,000 or more years ago?
Correct. Ozzy's view of science is woefully common - 'science is always making mistakes/is always changing its' mind'.
In fact, revising the state of knowledge in the light of new evidence is a good thing and makes science stronger, more adaptable, more resilient and indeed, more reliable than religion which prides itself on never changing, but of course it does change, reluctantly, to keep pace the rest of the world, and still pretends it is the same.
And then there are the twisted, like me, that dig the clawing and scratching...and like to bask in it.
Great to see you here Shirina!...the board has been diminished without you.
And the freedom to critique another's way of thinking (which you just did) is called free speech, particularly in a discussion forum.
It absolutely is - I never said you didn’t have that right. My point, for the purpose of a forum, is to state calling someone’s thought process or belief system ‘sloppy’ is not a valid point of debate, it’s merely emotional judgement.
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.