ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal
-
That type of thinking was also addressed in an earlier post. The "Arguments from Ignorance" part.
The scientific method can not be applied to the search for spiritual truth.
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Myth of the Flat Earth
Steve, when exactly was there a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat? I feel like you bring this up a lot, I am also pretty sure I have posted this wiki article before....
"The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]"
-
That type of thinking was also addressed in an earlier post. The "Arguments from Ignorance" part.
The scientific method can not be applied to the search for spiritual truth.
That type of thinking was also addressed in an earlier post. The "Arguments from Ignorance" part.
The scientific method can not be applied to the search for spiritual truth.
No it can't. Because only in that can we hope to explain things that we are unable to comprehend as in infinity.
I think it is both vain and ignorant to believe that the height of enlightenment is here and now on the planet Earth.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Well it really depends on what you mean by spiritual truth and enlightenment. it may be that there's no great creator, no supreme being, no beardy man in the clouds, and that our lives are just the 80 or so years we spend on this planet, nothing before, nothing afterwards, that's just it. So what's the spiritual truth then? In that case I'd say enlightenment can only be achieved in relation to this planet.
There may well be other life out there, and that life may well be going through the same thing as us. Or more likely, went through it already or will go through it in billions of years.
-
I don't think the concept of spiritual enlightenment is all that confusing, but for this conversation my definition would be understanding things beyond which we can understand now. Die, go to heaven or wherever, or even be Bill Murray in Caddyshack and receive spiritual enlightenment. Cross over to the next step and understand. That's all. Like the difference between insects birds cats apes and humans every group has their shit together a little bit better. Who thinks we're the top of the list for the end of the line?
WSS
-
That type of thinking was also addressed in an earlier post. The "Arguments from Ignorance" part.
The scientific method can not be applied to the search for spiritual truth.
No it can't. Because only in that can we hope to explain things that we are unable to comprehend as in infinity.
I think it is both vain and ignorant to believe that the height of enlightenment is here and now on the planet Earth.
WSS
No it can't. Because only in that can we hope to explain things that we are unable to comprehend as in infinity.
I think it is both vain and ignorant to believe that the height of enlightenment is here and now on the planet Earth.
WSS
I never said that. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by enlightenment.
Also, read that wiki article about the myth of the flat earth
-
No, clearly we are not at the max of what we know now. We will continue to further our understanding of science, further our experimental abilities. We will be able to fill in these gaps with sound science and remove the spiritual world from them. Just like we have been doing for hundreds of years
-
And for the record the ancient Greeks believed the earth was round well before the birth of Jesus. Also around Earth is mentioned in Isaiah.
WSS
-
So when exactly was a flat earth an accepted scientific reality?
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
Yes, because we have proven what causes those diseases isn't bad blood. We're not guessing at what causes cholera, we know.
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And as primitive as they may have been they were the equivalent of today's scientific community. Here's another one for you to bitch and cry about... At one point medical science believed illnesses were caused by bad blood. Now those guys are considered ridiculous. And even you admit that we here on earth today are not the pinnacle of enlightenment. So call me and a couple hundred years and we will laugh at your scientific conclusions of the today.
WSS
Alright, so thousands of years ago, before the concept of science and the scientific method, back when we fought for survival and believed in sun gods, thats when there was a flat earth consensus. After that point, when science and scientists were a thing, we scrapped the idea.
I wasnt bithcing and whining about your example, it was just wrong.
No one is saying we are right now at the pinnacle of scientific enticement... but we are not going to throw out everything we know now. Instead, it will be added on to, and fit into our larer understanding of the world around us.
What point are you trying to make here? That it is ok to dismiss scientific consensuses now because the overall idea may change in the future?
-
In a way.
Mostly that it's just as ignorant to blatherr on about something you don't know for sure and don't really understand than to call it intelligent design.
WSS
-
It is ignorant to equate the big bang theory to a man in the sky because it doesnt have 100% of the answers. It is ignorant to completely dismiss science as some popularity contest between money hungry scientists because you A) Dont understand what they are doing or
Disagree with their result. In the first video i posted where the writer/producer of Cosmos was interviewed, she said we were coming out of a period of great antagonism towards science. This board is a great example of that. The big bang theory will eventually become part of a larger theory that encompasses more and gives us more answers. At no point do I see us throwing it all away for a magic man in the clouds.
(DieHard, still waiting for the defense of your position)
-
if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
There is no anatagonism toward science. There is just different opinions
on certain results of certain scientists by regular folks, AND OTHER SCIENTISTS.
The attempt to scientifically explain all matters, doesn't exclude human beings'
failings. The political, self serving concurrence of a theory, because the grants
won't keep you open if you don't concur.
There are scientists who believe mmgw has not been proven at all. Now that "virtually all"
is gone, what's left is theory. And to belligerently claim that we have to pay exhorbitant taxes,
and take huge, expensive measures as a society, and be licensed, taxed, and regulated for
nearly anything we do (cows farting reference)...
over a freakin theory, is what is IGNORANT. I read where Steven Hawking now says there are no
black holes.
Thought most scientists believed they exist. Fancy that. True science fact - no scientists disagree. Plain and simple.
-
if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it.
WSS
if it doesn't say where the shit that blew up came from then it is just as ignorant as the man in the sky or The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it.
WSS
Lol no. No its not. If you don't agree then idk where else to go from here
-
Hawking did not say there "are no black holes". He is suggesting another way they may work, the specifics about them (about the event horizon). Like everything else, this will be researched and peer reviewed by other scientists. From there we will see what happens. No one is stating that scientific theories are constant. But, they aren't thrown out. They are added to or tweaked and become part of a larger theory. Again, a scientific theory isn't just "some idea". It is researched, tested, experimented on, peer reviewed, etc.
So climate scientists that agree with man made climate change are just politically charged. They are doing it just to keep the grant money coming...
... but those going against the vast majority of qualified scientists, they're the truth. They are good people just trying to fight Big Science...
Yeah OK cal.
For the one millionth time, no one is saying you can't find scientists that are on your side. The vast majority though aren't. And no, you can't completely disregard these scientists results for being impure while trumpeting around the a study funded by people with their own motivations...
Please, let's not turn this into ANOTHER "mmgw" thread. Jesus.
I still want to hear from diehard, or anyone, defending the ID/creationism side
-
By the way yes, I believe that many many scientists are being paid through government grants from organizations that want them to expose the dangers of man made global warming so they can adjust their tax structures accordingly. I also believe that the gas and oil companies hire scientists hoping to find data that disproves the other ones. I think both sets of scientists could be completely conscientious yet still quite aware where the funding is coming from and what goal is expected.
-
So you are not going to believe either side? You are going to equate govt scuentists to those hired by oil companies and cancel them out?
Where would you consider impartial studies to come from then?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login