CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[JeepHammer]

Ok, maybe we can have 2 narrow tracks.

First, full disclosure: I unrepentantly disagree that faith and science are mutually exclusive.

That's your 'Belief' even though science & religion are two diametrically opposed disciplines.
That proven fact will always be a sticking point since hard science doesn't have a filter (like religion).

And don't confuse hard science, directed practical science (Turing pure science into useable products) & 'Big Idea' theoretical science that's not yet repeatable so not proven.

Second, are you sure science takes nothing on faith? You describe experimental science, but appear to leave theoretical pursuits as "not science."

Absolutely!
Since science has pure, clean science... Practical applied science... Theoretical 'Big Idea' divisions that aren't sold as carved in stone dogma, but as a 'Scientific based idea/Theory', everything is clearly defined, nothing taken on 'Faith', and that's what the religion types don't understand.
Any 'Assumption' can be challenged at any time, by any one, but they have to conclusively PROVE everyone is wrong...

That's how science burns off 'Theory', bad ideas, lies, half truths.

Religion dogma CAN NOT be challenged. That is diametrically opposed to science....
That's why scientific discovering/discoveries were suppressed for centuries, with REALLY bad results for the guys that discovered, and proved the science.
Nothing like being disemboweled by the 'Faithful' while demanding YOU renounce your provable/repeatable discovery as 'Heresy'.

Keep in mind the 'Church' employed full time torture men & hired inventers to create more viscous torture devices for centuries...

 

[JettaKnight]

That's your 'Belief' even though science & religion are two diametrically opposed disciplines.
That proven fact will always be a sticking point since hard science doesn't have a filter (like religion).

Do philosophy and science oppose each other?

You're blind spot is your belief that science can explain everything.

Religion dogma CAN NOT be challenged.

I'd disagree to some extent. There's plenty of issues being argued and debated even today, e.g. Hell, Baptism, Eschatology.

Keep in mind the 'Church' employed full time torture men & hired inventers to create more viscous torture devices for centuries...

Now who's being argumentative?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Religion dogma CAN NOT be challenged.

But it certainly changes with the times.

There are plenty of aspects and practices that are non-existent because of advances and changes in society/civilization. I imagine because they were challenged at some point.

"Hey, maybe you shouldn't do *weird religious thing* anymore, 'kay?"
"Yeah, ok."

 

[JeepHammer]

Yeah, this may actually be an effective place to begin.

So, I'm curious why you think religion is static. Bedrock of a religion should remain constant. Its nature ought not change.

Change is the constant. Everything is constantly changing. The nature of nature is movement & change.
Religion seems to me to be an anchor for people (nothing else in nature has a religion, only people) to cling onto so they don't have to adapt to change...
It's personal observation, but a widely held viewpoint by the non-believers.

But the nature of science hasn't really changed since man first started trying to domesticate crops and animals or smelt metal.

Dead wrong.
Science is about WHY things change, not the results.
Mixing metals for an alloy was like most things, unintentional.
Simply smelting tin & copper in the same pot produced bronze, no science involved since the mixers weren't understanding the base materials and looking directly for bronze because they predicted the bronze would be a better product.

The first hunter-gather people didn't anticipate a crop growing from the seeds lost when separating stems/hulls from the grain, and that waste material producing another crop.

The guy that crossed breeds/strains of seeds via pollination looking for a hybrid was practicing science.
That means he would have to understand pollination, and the results of producing a hybrid.

That extended to GMOs, inserting genes from entirely different organisms that would never cross on their own.
A jellyfish would never reproduce with a corn stalk, and that's what GMOs are...

The way science is practiced certainly has changed. Same with religion. Particularly if you look comparatively at religions and the rise of monotheism.

Correct on science, as new scientific fields present themselves, new fields are opened up.
Branches of the same tree.

Incorrect with religion, one 'God', a 'God' and his alter ego 'Jesus', many gods & hybrids as they breed with humans, it's all random...
Whatever you can sell to the ignorant public in general.
Ignorant simply because they never heard of the 'Next' god(s) someone wants to replace the current god(s) with now...
No more or less proof of any new god(s) over the last god(s), just how the 'Salesman' sells the product.

The difference is, science doesn't kill off people that had things wrong or partly correct, and science doesn't dump proven truths in favor of a new 'Idea'.
You have to prove what you claim, and we don't burn all previous science books simply because someone "Claims" something different.

 

[rvb]

Confusing religion 'Faith' and hard science is a mistake that reduces credibality, that's why I threw up the red flag when the conversation came close, not to start something.

It's like calling evolution a 'Theory',
In the 1920s there were gaps in the fossil record between apes & men, the religious used as 'Missing Links' they said didn't exist.
In 2019 more fossils have been found, closing all gaps in the fossil record, and still they persist in saying there is a 'Missing Link'...

Another example is hybrid everything in agriculture, crops to livestock, selective breeding produces a directed evolution movement and they practice/use/take advantage of evolution while denying the existence of evolution.

Mixing religion & science is a mistake...
The 'Faithful' need to stick to faith so the scientific types, and the rest of us, can try to understand.
Keep in mind it's human nature to FEAR what we don't understand, and that often manifests as violence.
I would rather understand that lash out blindly... Even if I don't have the 'Faith'.

Yes, it's complicated, help me understand instead of insult or try to convert...

Right off the bat, you're reducing our inputs to meaningless and "throwing the flag" because you say our creditability is reduced. This idea that "the rest of you" can try to understand while religious types sit in the corner is flat condescending. If you don't want to have conversation because our inputs aren't credible, then are you just here to provoke? I have an MSEE, (that included quantum physics courses), have hobbies that include ham radios and astronomy. I dig science. But excuse me while I sit in the corner over here with my Bible....

I love the blend of science and religion. I find it fascinating to learn HOW God's creation works. It's impossible for them to be diametrically opposed. They perfectly complement each other. The deltas are in OUR limited understanding of both science and God.
That alone is not the foundation for my belief however, it just more straw in the clay, making the brick stronger (making my faith stronger).

evolution IS a theory. By definition. It's not a LAW, and even then I'd say "so what." There are "laws" of motion that we now understand don't always apply. We can find examples of micro-evolution, eg species adapting to their environment (like engineered crops you mentioned). There is no PROOF, however, of macro-evolution, eg species becoming other species. Otherwise all those birds on Galapagos would have become fish and escaped from that desolate island! An un-wavering belief in macro-evolution, in global warming, in a contracting and expanding universe, etc is nothing more than taking current held scientific understanding on... faith.

Will the scientific community move on if evidence against global warming or evolution is discovered? We see the data manipulation allegations in the global warming field because no matter what, the evidence MUST lead to the conclusion we've reached. Or will these things becomes to "scientists" what the sun orbiting the Earth became to the early church where no other ideas will be entertained???

Back to my corner.....

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

Incorrect with religion, one 'God', a 'God' and his alter ego 'Jesus', many gods & hybrids as they breed with humans, it's all random...
Whatever you can sell to the ignorant public in general.
Ignorant simply because they never heard of the 'Next' god(s) someone wants to replace the current god(s) with now...
No more or less proof of any new god(s) over the last god(s), just how the 'Salesman' sells the product.

You. You're looking for a reasonable debate.

Sure.

The difference is, science doesn't kill off people that had things wrong or partly correct, and science doesn't dump proven truths in favor of a new 'Idea'.
You have to prove what you claim, and we don't burn all previous science books simply because someone "Claims" something different.

Again, let me point out the scientifically enlightened eugenics.


Science told me butter was bad and I shouldn't eat it. Then it told me margarine was bad and I should eat butter.

 

[indiucky]

 

[indiucky]

 

[JeepHammer]

Right off the bat, you're reducing our discussion to meaningless and "throwing the flag" because you say our creditability is reduced. This idea that "the rest of you" can try to understand while religious types sit in the corner is flat condescending. If you don't want to have conversation because our inputs aren't creditable, then are you just here to provoke? I have an MSEE, (that included quantum physics courses), have hobbies that include ham radios and astronomy. I dig science. But excuse me while I sit in the corner over here with my Bible....

Your relationship between you and your Bible is none of my business.
And by 'The Rest Of Us' I mean the people that don't share your 'Faith' in whatever deity. No more, no less.
If that offends YOU, then ask yourself 'Why?'
Are you offended because we don't understand your 'Faith'?
Are you offended we are curious?
Are you offended we don't share your faith?
What offends you that we simply don't understand?

If that provokes YOU, again, ask yourself 'Why?'

I know why I ask, I'm curious... Nothing more.

I love the blend of science and religion. I find it fascinating to learn HOW God's creation works.

You filter and bend everything to an assumption that science doesn't support.
Filter everything through a religion dogma filter to try and reach a predisposed assumption.
That's not science, and it's the reason science & 'Faith' are mutually exclusive.

If you 'Believe' anything else, then it's not science.
It might be learning what things do, but not how they do it (science) simply because you pre-suppose it's 'Devine Creation'.

It's impossible for them to be diametrically opposed. They perfectly complement each other. The deltas are in OUR limited understanding of both science and God.

And there it is, you ASSUME everything is 'Devine Creation', proving that science & religion are diametrically opposed.

You refuse to accept the concept of pure science on it's face value, and therefore can't understand the basis/concept of pure science.
And that's directly from your own thoughts/religious filter/view point...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Lot of "we"

So much "we"

This feels like it's approaching politics-levels of tribalism.

I see one username making posts... Maybe switch to "I", until we can poll all non-religious people to see if they're 100% in agreement with you

 

[Dionesius3]

Lot of "we"

So much "we"

This feels like it's approaching politics-levels of tribalism.

I see one username making posts... Maybe switch to "I", until we can poll all non-religious people to see if they're 100% in agreement with you

Maybe he has a mouse in his pocket and thus the "we" is correct??

 

[JeepHammer]

In the spirit of one topic at a time so things don't get mixed and no one tries to pull a fast one...

evolution IS a theory.

I'm, not to beat a point to death, evolution hasn't been a 'Theory' for quite a while...
As we directly observe and scientifically track the genome of plants/animals that adapt to live in synthetic chemicals, things that never existed in 'Gods Creation' proves evolution conclusively.

There are hundreds of examples of this, directly observed, and everything adapts (or dies) as things change.
Again, direct proof of evolution.
[

By definition. It's not a LAW, and even then I'd say "so what."

Summary rejection (or undermining) proven science doesn't make your argument valid.
(And you are arguing, not debating)
Me simply saying there isn't any such thing as gravity doesn't make gravity go away, it just makes me look like an idiot.
The small way flat earthers look like idiots...

And there is the credibality issue again, when you question proven scientific facts, how does that affect your credibility?

There are "laws" of motion that we now understand don't always apply.

STOP RIGHT THERE...
The 'Laws' of motion ALWAYS apply!
That's part of science...

The UNDERSTANDING of the anomalies we observe in what we *Think* things should be doing needs to be changed, and science does that.
We don't accept it's 'Gods Will' and forget about it.

There is a REASON for changes, not just the whim of a 'Creator'.

The macro world has one set of rules of motion, which are well known & understood.
Since man has only been able to observe the results/actions in the quantum world, those rules of motion are still being worked out.
Science progresses through ideas, experimentation, understanding and doesn't have a fixed idea to begin with.

*IF* they find a 'God', and can prove they found it, then I will believe in 'God'.
Since the Christian 'God' never addressed quantum physics it probably won't be the Christan god....

We can find examples of micro-evolution, eg species adapting to their environment (like engineered crops you mentioned). There is no PROOF, however, of macro-evolution, eg species becoming other species. Otherwise all those birds on Galapagos would have become fish and escaped from that desolate island! An un-wavering belief in macro-evolution, in global warming, in a contracting and expanding universe, etc is nothing more than taking current held scientific understanding on... faith.

Your understanding of evolution is shockingly bad...

The finches ("those birds") had mutated to adapt to the environment.
Second, what makes you think they needed to 'Escape'? Plenty of food, no predators, climate was good for them...

What about swimming iguanas? Only place in the world they are found?

Several other species & sub species found only in the Gapalagos islands? What about them?

What about spices that change sex?
What about larva/caterpillars that change into a completely different spices: moths & butterflies...?
What about species you can cut in two that both halves grow entirely new bodies and become two entirely different animals even having different sexes?

----------

And just for the record, evolution means adapting to the environment over time,
NOT an entirely new species over night.

As fish adapted to land travel, grew legs, and EVENTUALLY became reptiles...
As reptiles eventually grew feathers and became birds...
As primates eventually walked upright and became humans...
As the fossil record shows, it works in steps over time, not an overnight thing.
As current hybrids show, it's steps through generations.

Humans have become taller, more fair skinned, have more dexterous fingers, even larger eyes since we are visual creatures, and this is just modern humans, no need to go back to 'Links'...
Just the last 15,000 years or so.

 

[T.Lex]

Science is about WHY things change, not the results.
Mixing metals for an alloy was like most things, unintentional.
Simply smelting tin & copper in the same pot produced bronze, no science involved since the mixers weren't understanding the base materials and looking directly for bronze because they predicted the bronze would be a better product.

The first hunter-gather people didn't anticipate a crop growing from the seeds lost when separating stems/hulls from the grain, and that waste material producing another crop.

The guy that crossed breeds/strains of seeds via pollination looking for a hybrid was practicing science.
That means he would have to understand pollination, and the results of producing a hybrid.

You are somewhat being peppered by responses - thanks for hanging in there.

Again, for me, I'll try to focus on particular points.

In the quote above, you say that "science" looks at "why." I see that as incorrect. Science - especially the practical definition you use, since you reject the theoretical sciences - is terrible at "why." The better formulation is that science looks at "what" happens. If you heat up ice, it melts into water. Make it boil and it becomes steam.

It cannot explain why the molecules behave that way. It can't explain why water - unlike most other liquids - expands when it freezes or contracts when it melts. There is always another "why" question to ask, once the earlier question is answered.

Practical science explains what happens when you apply heat to ice, what happens when the atoms are excited, what happens when they change phase. But the Grand Unified Theory and Theory of Everything remain elusive.

Which, I guess, brings "us" to an interesting question: do you think practical science at some point in the future will be able to know everything? That is, will there be an discovery left undiscovered about the physical world?

 

[rvb]

You filter and bend everything to an assumption that science doesn't support.
Filter everything through a religion dogma filter to try and reach a predisposed assumption.
That's not science, and it's the reason science & 'Faith' are mutually exclusive.

If you 'Believe' anything else, then it's not science.
It might be learning what things do, but not how they do it (science) simply because you pre-suppose it's 'Devine Creation'.



And there it is, you ASSUME everything is 'Devine Creation', proving that science & religion are diametrically opposed.

You refuse to accept the concept of pure science on it's face value, and therefore can't understand the basis/concept of pure science.
And that's directly from your own thoughts/religious filter/view point...

I'm not bending science. I accept science for what it is.... an "evolution" of understanding. You have a dogma that says current scientific THEORY is the only possible explanation, locked in stone, un-debatable. You convinced me of that when you criticized people for calling evolution a "theory," when scientifically that's exactly what it is (technically, it barely qualifies for that. Is it testable? Repeatable? Verifiable? It's honestly an "idea" based on some observations and fossils). Theories continue to change, friend. I was just reading yesterday how it's now thought Earth's atmosphere extends past the moon! Cool, huh? Scientifically (ignoring all religious beliefs), I'm open to other ideas, other discoveries. Are you?

people who's faith is strictly in science filter and bend it to support their beliefs, also. You're showing bias if you can't acknowledge that. The rate the universe is expanding is increasing, going against "laws" of entropy and gravity, disproving big-bang origin theories like a continually contracting/expanding universe... yet scientists have to assume there is some yet unknown mechanism at work they just haven't found yet. My belief is God started it all, and maybe someday how will be revealed to us. or not... doesn't really matter. You're belief is there is no God, only a "scientific" beginning is possible. To be absolutely truly scientific, I'd expect you to at least be agnostic, and say that there "could be" a God, depending on whatever further evidence we discover.

If that provokes YOU, again, ask yourself 'Why?'

easy... because you said that since I believe in a creator, I'm in essence "not eligible" to discuss science. You have pre-disposed that anything I say is invalid. You assume I'm in-capable of taking science at face value.

You came here to use science to call religious people stupid. fine. You get your wish, I won't discuss further. Just know that religious people aren't all out to shove "dogma" down your throat, at least not any more than evolutionists are out to shove their dogma down ours

-rvb

 

[rvb]

In the spirit of one topic at a time so things don't get mixed and no one tries to pull a fast one...



I'm, not to beat a point to death, evolution hasn't been a 'Theory' for quite a while...
As we directly observe and scientifically track the genome of plants/animals that adapt to live in synthetic chemicals, things that never existed in 'Gods Creation' proves evolution conclusively.

There are hundreds of examples of this, directly observed, and everything adapts (or dies) as things change.
Again, direct proof of evolution.
[


Summary rejection (or undermining) proven science doesn't make your argument valid.
(And you are arguing, not debating)
Me simply saying there isn't any such thing as gravity doesn't make gravity go away, it just makes me look like an idiot.
The small way flat earthers look like idiots...

And there is the credibality issue again, when you question proven scientific facts, how does that affect your credibility?



STOP RIGHT THERE...
The 'Laws' of motion ALWAYS apply!
That's part of science...

The UNDERSTANDING of the anomalies we observe in what we *Think* things should be doing needs to be changed, and science does that.
We don't accept it's 'Gods Will' and forget about it.

There is a REASON for changes, not just the whim of a 'Creator'.

The macro world has one set of rules of motion, which are well known & understood.
Since man has only been able to observe the results/actions in the quantum world, those rules of motion are still being worked out.
Science progresses through ideas, experimentation, understanding and doesn't have a fixed idea to begin with.

*IF* they find a 'God', and can prove they found it, then I will believe in 'God'.
Since the Christian 'God' never addressed quantum physics it probably won't be the Christan god....



Your understanding of evolution is shockingly bad...

The finches ("those birds") had mutated to adapt to the environment.
Second, what makes you think they needed to 'Escape'? Plenty of food, no predators, climate was good for them...

What about swimming iguanas? Only place in the world they are found?

Several other species & sub species found only in the Gapalagos islands? What about them?

What about spices that change sex?
What about larva/caterpillars that change into a completely different spices: moths & butterflies...?
What about species you can cut in two that both halves grow entirely new bodies and become two entirely different animals even having different sexes?

----------

And just for the record, evolution means adapting to the environment over time,
NOT an entirely new species over night.

As fish adapted to land travel, grew legs, and EVENTUALLY became reptiles...
As reptiles eventually grew feathers and became birds...
As primates eventually walked upright and became humans...
As the fossil record shows, it works in steps over time, not an overnight thing.
As current hybrids show, it's steps through generations.

Humans have become taller, more fair skinned, have more dexterous fingers, even larger eyes since we are visual creatures, and this is just modern humans, no need to go back to 'Links'...
Just the last 15,000 years or so.

I don't see where my understanding is so far off.
sorry you didn't understand I was trying to be funny about the birds swimming away.....
swimming iguanas maybe went extinct elsewhere, and again, just an inter-species adaptation even if they never existed elsewhere. Remember, I stated there IS evidence of species adapting/evolving within their environment. eg dogs growing long hair in cold environments and short hair in hot environments. But they are still dogs. People getting taller? Maybe we should discuss diet over the last few centuries? And unique traits w/in a species isn't proving anything... caterpillars into butterflies isn't two species. common, you're better than that.

Where I can't make the scientific leap is that there is PROOF in MACRO-evolution. Just a few fossils that show some similarities isn't going to cut it, scientifically. There are bugs that look like plants. In time when their fossils get dug up will scientists say "trees must have evolved from bugs."?? It's an observation, resulting in a theory. Enough different species of birds and enough different species of reptiles/dinosaurs and a couple look similar and now it's irrefutable proof? You can't call it more than a theory just because lots of people accept it as truth, that's not scientific.

oh, and electrons have mass. Yet they manage to ignore Newton. Strange.

ok, I said I was done but you had already replied to a previous post so I figured I wouldn't leave you hanging.

I hope you find what you are looking for in this thread. Have a blessed day!

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

Your relationship between you and your Bible is none of my business.
And by 'The Rest Of Us' I mean the people that don't share your 'Faith' in whatever deity. No more, no less.
If that offends YOU, then ask yourself 'Why?'
Are you offended because we don't understand your 'Faith'?
Are you offended we are curious?
Are you offended we don't share your faith?
What offends you that we simply don't understand?

If that provokes YOU, again, ask yourself 'Why?'

I know why I ask, I'm curious... Nothing more.



You filter and bend everything to an assumption that science doesn't support.
Filter everything through a religion dogma filter to try and reach a predisposed assumption.
That's not science, and it's the reason science & 'Faith' are mutually exclusive.

If you 'Believe' anything else, then it's not science.
It might be learning what things do, but not how they do it (science) simply because you pre-suppose it's 'Devine Creation'.



And there it is, you ASSUME everything is 'Devine Creation', proving that science & religion are diametrically opposed.

You refuse to accept the concept of pure science on it's face value, and therefore can't understand the basis/concept of pure science.
And that's directly from your own thoughts/religious filter/view point...

So one person starts with the assumption there is a divine creator, and one person starts with an assumption there is not.

Yet, you've declared one is "scientific" and the other is clouded by dogma.

Hmmm....

 

[JeepHammer]

You are somewhat being peppered by responses - thanks for hanging in there.

Again, for me, I'll try to focus on particular points.

In the quote above, you say that "science" looks at "why." I see that as incorrect. Science - especially the practical definition you use, since you reject the theoretical sciences - is terrible at "why." The better formulation is that science looks at "what" happens. If you heat up ice, it melts into water. Make it boil and it becomes steam.

It cannot explain why the molecules behave that way. It can't explain why water - unlike most other liquids - expands when it freezes or contracts when it melts. There is always another "why" question to ask, once the earlier question is answered.

Practical science explains what happens when you apply heat to ice, what happens when the atoms are excited, what happens when they change phase. But the Grand Unified Theory and Theory of Everything remain elusive.

Which, I guess, brings "us" to an interesting question: do you think practical science at some point in the future will be able to know everything? That is, will there be an discovery left undiscovered about the physical world?

I don't agree.
As science evolved with human brain capacity expansion, the 'Why' of things became the question and still is.
Happenstance, 'Mistakes', unexpected but useful finds created the 'Why' of things, just like curiosity gave rise to religion & science.

Monkeys & apes use MADE tools, stems to fish ants & termites out of their mounds, but they don't question how it works...
Otters use rocks to break muscle shells open, but they don't ask what the density of the rock is, what the tensile strength of the shell is, what part motion/inertia plays in the cracking of the shell.
They only know a rock breaks a shell...

Your example of ice turning into water then steam...
That's direct observation of a natural event.
Science comes in when you consider, quantify, classify the thermal energy coming from a combustible material, consider the conversion rate from solid to heat energy, the transfer rate from thermal to the ice to make it water, then from water to steam.
Science is understanding heat energy is exciting the H2O molecules making them move further apart until ices becomes water, then steam.
Science is understanding & comparing the specific gravity of the water, the cross sectional density of ice vs water vs steam.
I think we all can use that science lesson, since so many can't seem to separate the idea of mass (weight in relationship to gravity) and density (as normally compared to the weight of water), and cross sectional density (how hard it is to separate the material from itself).

An 'Ounce' of water as steam is a 'Puff' when propelled at you.
That same 'Ounce' as ice will penetrate you like a bullet.
That same 'Ounce' hits you and splatters as water...
Knowing WHY is science!

Practical use science is figuring out what some pure science discovery is good for.
An example is a chemist or metallurgist discovers 'Stainless Steel' a human invented alloy.

Pure science figures out how to repeatably make stainless steel, but then what?
What are it's limits? Most efficient way to form it? What will it be most useful for? What does it react with? What is it inert to?

Science marches on...
Stainless steel has been around a couple hundred years, while it's just been the last two or three decades science FINALLY figured out how to harden it sufficiently to make a reasonable knife blade that would hold an edge.
Previously it was just too soft...

Pure science finds stainless steel.
Directed science figures out the most efficient way to produce stainless steel.
Directed science figures out the limits of corrosion resistance, fracturing, etc.
Applied science figures out the best way to use it in our lives.

The person in the kitchen doesn't know any of this to USE the stainless steel pots, pans, spoons, etc.

As for the question of knowing 'Everything'?
No, not with the current way human nervous system works.
To start with, not enough storage space in the human brain for 'Everything' that's currently available.
That would be the reason for specific fields of scientific research...

The second reason is humans have 5 very limited senses, and most times they only register 1 at a time due to the human nervous system.
Then let's not forget for about 8 hours a day, virtually everything switches off, and we have to visit the toilet, eat, tend to manual tasks like bathing, getting dressed/undressed, dealing with other people, etc.
If someone is SERIOUSLY disciplined, they *Might* get a few uninterrupted moments, or maybe even an hour to devote to pure science thinking or research before something breaks in to distract them.
That's a pretty small window to learn 'Everything'!

--------

While Dunning-Kruger effect rampages, I know enough to know I'm not an 'Expert' on anything, but I know enough to get some kind of a grip on what I DON'T know.
Keep in mind I've changed 'Life Majors' a half dozen times...
From farm boy/high school student for 17 years, then shifted my field of experience/education to being a US Marine for 16 years, then my time got devoted to earning a living since VA benefits aren't even an existence if you weren't a senior officer...

AND... It takes a LOT of money to get put back together since the VA scabs you together to the extent you aren't going to die right there, right then, then calls any scientific/medical breakthrough 'Experimental' and refused to pay for it...
Trust me on this, I've spent a TON of cash on medical procedures that helped, made WORLDS of difference the VA wouldn't consider for me.
It's stuff in common practice... But the VA won't do it...

I did devote a couple years to self examination, what I'd seen & done, and decided I didn't want any part of what humans were doing to each other.
It's that self examined life thing, which I'd never taken time to do until I wound up in a body cast or back/leg braces.

That's when I decided to go 'Sustainable' as possible.
If genocide is happening over oil, then I reduce oil consumption to an absolute minimum.
It's a moral choice that didn't include religion.

If the 'Middle Class' (living wage) is disappearing, then I simply find something to do that reduces what I need 'Money' for so I'm not part of the big business take over.

Since a 'Consumer' economy is false & can't sustain itself, and further destroys the middle class, I simply won't participate in that eventual collapse, instead choosing to sustain myself with 'Needs' instead of 'Wants', and that is agriculture/agriculture related for me.
I make tools & machines, not 'Widgets & 'DoDads' that serve no function other than momentary entertainment.
Again, a moral choice that doesn't involve harming anyone or separating a fool from his money.

I could very well be a complete fool...
At least I'll be a fool that never did damage beyond my military years...

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm, not to beat a point to death, evolution hasn't been a 'Theory' for quite a while...

Stop.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect $200.


Evolution is a theory, the same way gravity is theory.

Just because it's widely accepted changes nothing.

 

[JettaKnight]

JH, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm on your "ignore list".

You've asked why people kill in the name of religion, and I've asked why people kill in the name of science.

Are you here to have a meaningful discussion, or just ask rhetorical questions?



You believe science will explain everything can, and does, occur without supernatural involvement given enough time.

I don't.



We're all taking it on good faith that you came here with the pure motive of discussing it with some openness.




Here's a nugget: My faith isn't based on the premise that there are things science can't explain; it's based on Jesus. Any doubt I had was erased when I looked at the life of Jesus through a critical, historical lens.

He (A) was a real person, (B) died on a cross, (C) was resurrected, (D) was followed by many to their own grizzly deaths, (E) fulfilled the manifold prophecies of old.

Only someone perfect and supernatural could fit that description.


So, if you're really open, then let's quit talking about science v. religion (because you're mind is already set on the "winner", despite there isn't really a contest), and start talking about Christ v. evil.

(If that's the case, we should go over the "Christianity" thread)


(or you can just keep telling us how unenlightened we are because with start with a different presupposition than you.)

 

[JeepHammer]

I'm not bending science. I accept science for what it is.... an "evolution" of understanding. You have a dogma that says current scientific THEORY is the only possible explanation, locked in stone, un-debatable. You convinced me of that when you criticized people for calling evolution a "theory," when scientifically that's exactly what it is (technically, it barely qualifies for that. Is it testable? Repeatable? Verifiable? It's honestly an "idea" based on some observations and fossils). Theories continue to change, friend. I was just reading yesterday how it's now thought Earth's atmosphere extends past the moon! Cool, huh? Scientifically (ignoring all religious beliefs), I'm open to other ideas, other discoveries. Are you?

Until there is something that pops up in the fossil record that refutes the currently accepted FACT of evolution...
The fossil record being the ONLY THING WE HAVE,
It's fact that gets built on everytime someone unearths a fossil.
It's pretty simple but you simply refuse to accept the actual, literal carved in stone evidence because of a religious filter.

You refuse to accept the past LIVING evidence in your lifetime, and recent history of scientific results no one can refute (or it would have been challenged and proven wrong because that's how science works).

people who's faith is strictly in science filter and bend it to support their beliefs, also.

Dead wrong.
Science has no filters. Your idea is either 'Correct' or 'Flawed/Wrong' simply because it has to pass the acid test of other experts in the same field.
That's what separates science from 'Faith'...
There is no crucible in faith to burn away the incorrect or false,
The dogma stands, and anyone that challenges it is a 'Heretic'.

I might also point out that if you can't see the difference between 'Faith'/'Religion' and science, then you can't understand the difference between science & 'Magic' or religion dogma.

You're showing bias if you can't acknowledge that.

That's the pot calling the kettle black because you ran out of facts... Or even ideas.

The rate the universe is expanding is increasing, going against "laws" of entropy and gravity, disproving big-bang origin theories like a continually contracting/expanding universe...

Again, you haven't been keeping up...
Constant acceleration or slowing ('improperly refered to as 'entropy') is an old disproven theory.
New information, including the the FACT the OBSERVABLE universe is accelerating in size simply proved there is a force we CAN NOT OBSERVE DIRECTLY. This is the inclusive term 'Dark Energy' or 'Dark Matter'.

Keep in mind you just committed heresy by the Christian dogma for even mentioning a greater universe...
There are no other galaxies, the earth is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it.
This is punishable by torture & death...

yet scientists have to assume there is some yet unknown mechanism at work they just haven't found yet.

That's what science does.
Observe, postulate, design experiments to prove. Pure science.
'Gods Will' doesn't stop the curious, and since the 'Religious' rarely burn anyone at the stake anymore, it's a lot safer to be curious than it used to be!
They are more into shooting now than burning at the stake, but at least that's rare...

My belief is God started it all,

WHAT AN EGO!
That's either a mis-speak or an ego that 'Believes' religion & science were invented BY THE EGO,... for it to pick & choose, to entertain it!

And maybe someday how will be revealed to us. or not...

Which 'Us'?
You and your ego? You and who else?
Are you suggesting that people practicing or believing in hard facts need 'Enlightened'?
If so, that's a run away ego also since you think everyone else are either dumb animals,
OR,
You PERSONALLY have some inside scoop that makes you above everyone else.

It's also that ego, arrogance, sense of superiority that causes a LOT of friction.
Where 'Christians' supposed to be humble? Isn't that directly contrary to Christian teachings to be tolerant & understanding?

I'm TRYING to understand, I ask questions,
I lay down perfectly acceptable/clear ground rules, simply don't confuse actual hard science with science Theory, or religion,
And immediately you mix the two instead of explaining your 'Faith' so an outsider can understand it.

If YOU can't separate the two (science & religion) that's fine...
You weren't who I was asking for anyway, I asked for someone that, 1. Can separate science from religion, 2. Can put into words what their faith is, if that's possible.

It's entirely possible that 'Faith' can't be put into words, or even the idea can be presented in a cogent way those of us that don't understand CAN understand...
It's REALLY hard to express a strong feeling, and even harder to quantify a 'Feeling' since everyone perceives everything differently.

It's clear you are frustrated with the attempt... And I can't do anything about that.