Science isn't All That Reliable...

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Blackrook, Aug 16, 2011.

  1. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "there is nothing special about scientists but there is something special about science."

    Quit confusing science with scientists.
     
  2. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why are you harping at my use of the term 'scientists' when my comment was in direct response to a statement made by someone else using the same exact term. In fact, the subject of Science was not even mentioned in either my post or the post made by the other forum member to which I was responding. It seems that you must be taking things out of context; or adding things to those two postings that were not under discussion at that point in time.
     
  3. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    By that same logic that you employ; then it could be said that those people who condemn Christianity because of the misuse of Christianity are in actuality blaming the wrong entity. It is not Christianity (or the Christian church) but rather the individual(s) that misuse Christianity. If your logic is correct, then that would mean that a lot of Atheists and non-Theists have been blaming Christianity wrongfully all these years, when in fact, the Atheists and non-Theists should have been focusing on the individual Christians who misused Christianity. As you have stated above, that misuse of Christianity does not act to condemn Christianity, but only those that misuse it.

    I tell you what. If you can get all the Atheists and non-Theists who have made such negative remarks against Christianity (ridiculing remarks, character smear remarks) to publicly retract their statements with a public notice, then I will likewise retract my negative statements with regard to science.
     
  4. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are assuming that all condemnations o Christianity are misuses of Christianity. Maybe, maybe not, but this is still IRRELEVANT to the issue.

    A butter knife was made to cut butter. if someone uses it to gouge out someone's eye, are you going to blame the butter knife?

    tu quoqe fallacy. Other peopel doing wrong does not give you license to do wrong.
     
  5. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2 u and many who just accept what someone else claims but to someone who actually does the homework and willing to spend the time to understand, it is absolutely relevant
    2 u the evolution beginning at element A and energy AB is irrelevant.

    To me, life did not begin at adam and eve but atoms and energy; big difference.

    likewise, a hurricane is closer to a black hole than hawking ever comprehended
    it absolutely goes against the 'plain old physics' and it is not my lacking of comprehension but yours to even state such an ignorant claim.

    for example; eating aint a random act, even for a virus's consumption
     
  6. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't believe that I am making such an assumption. But obviously you are making a presumption about me which again places you in the position of speaking through a condition of 'ignorance of the subject matter', the subject matter being me. As I recall, I do believe that I did make a specific categorization of such matters to be considered and those two items listed do not include ALL condemnations of Christianity. Relevance? What then, according to you IS relevant to the issue of condemning Christianity or Science?

    A prayer was designed as a means of communing with God, are you going to blame a prayer for the death of someone?

    Then you are admitting that Atheists and other non-Theists are doing wrong in their condemnation of Christianity? And because they are doing wrong I don't have a license to execute the same type of offense?

    That is a two part question above.
     
  7. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    common decent, started with the same 'energy' upon that mass

    For starters; for a life to procreate, it must give a portion of itself (sperm/egg) to combine to make the next generation. if that life (energy) ever had a break in or any any time during the process, the next generation would not exist. That concept is misunderstood within biology. As the process (spark) must be in motion at all times. Some believe that a life can be reanimated when in reality, unless the energy (per se photon) was released during a breakup of the molecule structures, it is still there. ie... of the bohr analogy, for an electron to even raise to another shell, it must capture a photon (energy). so in reality, there is not even a single combination of elements without the energy (photon/light) upon that mass; ALL CASES!
    YEs.... you are missing the principles of how mass/energy combine upon mass, which is relevant to comprehending how life (the emergent property) exist in the first place.

    Be prepared for a paradigm shift as that is what is occuring within the scientific community as you sit.

    It may appear esoteric to you now, but be certain...... you are in the generation of the last evolution of the sciences; existence comprehending itself.

    ie.... life (you and i) consciously aware of EXACTLY how it works.

    state with comprehending the specimen as the 'energy upon mass' in which ever your level of biological understanding. Most observe the mass but fail at maintaining the applicability as to what is holding that mass (molecular structures) together.

    For example; when a life is dead, all the same elements are there, but the process has stopped. That process is what few focus on as relevant.
     
  8. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Should we start referring to you as the 'angel of light' or the 'minister of righteousness'? You do seem to have a hang-up on this 'light' thing.

     
  9. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm still totally confused by your stream of consciousness. I like to think I have a fair understanding of how energy is relevant to life but forgive if I can not make sense of your statements.
     
  10. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You know cooky; I don't believe he can explain those relationships himself in a manner that is both intelligible, correct and convincing. That is just FYI, IMHO.
     

Share This Page