APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

[PostmodernProphet]

The same could be said for many non-physical sciences. *shrug*

the same could be said for abiogenesis.....

 

[Kamala Trump]

the same could be said for abiogenesis.....

Or the god delusion....


point is, science is about proof.

 

[uscitizen]

Or the god delusion....


point is, science is about proof.

Also science will change it's views when proven wrong. Religion will not change it's views.
The difference between fact and faith based studies.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Or the god delusion....


point is, science is about proof.

I agree wholeheartedly....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Also science will change it's views when proven wrong. Religion will not change it's views.
The difference between fact and faith based studies.

you didn't change your views when proven wrong, almost on a daily basis....does that mean you're religious?.....

 

[uscitizen]

you didn't change your views when proven wrong, almost on a daily basis....does that mean you're religious?.....

I do too. I was wrong on proof about the feather and lead experiment. I admitted that.

I am only wrong mostly in your view which means I am likely correct.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I do too. I was wrong on proof about the feather and lead experiment. I admitted that.

I wasn't there....what did you do, bet that the lead wouldn't hurt any worse than the feather when it hit you on the head from a twenty foot drop?.....

 

[uscitizen]

Nope I thought that the feather fell slightly slower in a vacuum becuase of gravity affecting organics less than non organics.

It is a strong theory but not proven yet.
The difference if any is very very small.

 

[Damocles]

Also science will change it's views when proven wrong. Religion will not change it's views.
The difference between fact and faith based studies.

Not exactly. Ask the Catholic Church if the Earth is the center of the Universe.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Not exactly. Ask the Catholic Church if the Earth is the center of the Universe.

or even the Mormans regarding polygamy.....

 

[Minister of Truth]

or even the Mormans regarding polygamy.....

Granted, I think they meant natural sciences. Polygamy is more of a debate involving social sciences...

 

[DamnYankee]

Granted, I think they meant natural sciences. Polygamy is more of a debate involving social sciences...

The point is still valid. Most churches are quick to adopt the mores of society as their own, as long as there is no biblical conflict.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I think they meant natural sciences.

really?....I think the opposite....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The same could be said for many non-physical sciences. *shrug*

You mean the social sciences? Yes, this is true and this is what seperates them from the natural sciences.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

BTW, I found an excellent web site founded by two Biologist who work for Nazarene Libreal Arts Colleges. It's called BioLogos and the intent is to reconcile beliefs in faith and science. It's a very interesting philosophical site.

 

[Damocles]

BTW, I found an excellent web site founded by two Biologist who work for Nazarene Libreal Arts Colleges. It's called BioLogos and the intent is to reconcile beliefs in faith and science. It's a very interesting philosophical site.

Linky?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Linky?

sorry

http://biologos.org/

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Religious Tolerance is another excellent web site that attempts to gap religious and science issues.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Religious Tolerance is another excellent web site that attempts to gap religious and science issues.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

ROFL....

from the about us section of Religious Tolerance...

Almost all of the over 4,475 essays and menus on this web site (as of 2008-NOV) were written by our main author, and coordinator Bruce A. Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics.

and

Many visitors to our web site question our authors' theological credentials. We explain that none of our staff have theological degrees. We feel that a formal theological degree would be counter-productive in our work. It would probably tend to bias our authors' understanding of religious matters in a liberal direction

by the way "our staff" and "our authors" means Bruce....

if you really want to look like a fool, try to use Bruce as an authority in an argument....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

ROFL....

from the about us section of Religious Tolerance...



and


by the way "our staff" and "our authors" means Bruce....

if you really want to look like a fool, try to use Bruce as an authority in an argument....

You mean in an argument for religious tolerance? I have a feeling that any such argument with you would be foolish or more correctly, a waste of time for obvious reasons.