Science isn’t always the answer.

[Mello711]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

On one hand you're saying the scientific study of the universe is arrogant because it's all "too much for our tiny human minds to absorb" (paraphrasing), then on the other hand you say something arrogant like this;

"We need to realize that God determines all."

We can't stop asking questions because people like you claim all the answers are in a magic book written by barefoot peasants 2500 years ago.

You want to be religious and save the world, preach about ending wars and getting rid of our mega-arsenal of nuclear weapons.

I agree. The world would be much better without nukes. Not sure a lot of people here will agree though

 

[the other mike]

I agree. The world would be much better without nukes. Not sure a lot of people here will agree though

War is a racket.
It's not like we were never warned and
could never have put an end to it eventually.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

 

[Newtonian]

I agree. The world would be much better without nukes. Not sure a lot of people here will agree though

War is a racket.
It's not like we were never warned and
could never have put an end to it eventually.
View attachment 340229

Sadly, science provides the weapons, and man uses them. We are from all nations and learn war no more as foretold in Isaiah 2:2-4 - the UN has this verse on its Isaiah wall, but the UN cannot accomplish this.

 

[deanrd]

If the Bible is one choice and science is the other, then science is the only real choice.

 

[the other mike]

If the Bible is one choice and science is the other, then science is the only real choice.

Of course. There's no instruction manual for the future, especially given the unpredictability of human beings. You know, just 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat..... 300 years ago we were still burning witches in this country. ( Salem witch trials - 1692)

Any day an asteroid or super-volcano could wipe us out, if not a pandemic or nuclear war, but who knows where we'll be 200 years from now.

Maybe the computers will decide.

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

Yes the scientific method has been used. And consensus is, in the end, the highest level of certainty that science ever achieves since science itself by definition can never be fixed. Everything is always open to new insights.
Claiming otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

 

[Newtonian]

If the Bible is one choice and science is the other, then science is the only real choice.

Of course. There's no instruction manual for the future, especially given the unpredictability of human beings. You know, just 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat..... 300 years ago we were still burning witches in this country. ( Salem witch trials - 1692)

Any day an asteroid or super-volcano could wipe us out, if not a pandemic or nuclear war, but who

If the Bible is one choice and science is the other, then science is the only real choice.

Of course. There's no instruction manual for the future, especially given the unpredictability of human beings. You know, just 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat..... 300 years ago we were still burning witches in this country. ( Salem witch trials - 1692)

Any day an asteroid or super-volcano could wipe us out, if not a pandemic or nuclear war, but who knows where we'll be 200 years from now.

Maybe the computers will decide.

where we'll be 200 years from now.

Maybe the computers will decide.

I

True, many thought the earth was flat - but the Bible taught the earth is round, not flat:

Isaiah 40:22.
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

NW footnote on "circle" - "or, sphere"

Job 26:10
He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,+
To where light ends in darkness.

The division of lighf and darkness is called by scientists: the "terminator." Since the terminator is a circle, earth must be a sphere.

The Hebrew word translated circle in both verses is shuwg which means circle in 2 dimensions and sphere in 3 dimensions. Since the terminator is a line, chuwg means circle in Job 26:10. However, both definitions (circle/sphere) apply in Isaiah 40:22. In 3 dimensions earth is a sphere. However, when viewed from any vantage point earth appears as a circle - see astronaut photos of earth.

Galileo noticed the same problem and realized that the correct interpretation of both the Bible and scientific observation showed our solar system is heliocentric not geocentric as the Church taught. For this Galileo was excommunicated.

So, science is definitely superior to false religion. The Bible is superior to both. However, truth from science and Scripture are in harmony.

 

[Newtonian]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

Yes the scientific method has been used. And consensus is, in the end, the highest level of certainty that science ever achieves since science itself by definition can never be fixed. Everything is always open to new insights.
Claiming otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Yes, what is taught in science (i.e. what is popular) changes such that older scientific literature is out of date. The same is true of our literature - our older literature is out of date. And the reasons are the same, namely:

Research and the humility to change one's beliefs when research demands it. That is one reason my religion is not tradition bound.

The remarkable thing is that the Bible is much older yet is infallible!

However, that is only true when the observation is accurate or the translation is accurate - i.e. the interpretation is accurate.

 

[Hollie]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

It seems to me that the religious extremists are too arrogant.

I think that the problem most religious people have with rationality (as opposed to mysticism and belief in spirit worlds), is that they perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason. Human history shows that mankind will continue to explore and learn, and I believe that we can only do so using rationality. To purport some partisan "incomprehensible" being means that you have a guaranteed method of making the Universe exactly that: incomprehensible. Ultimately, I think it very possible that our intellect will afford us the chance to learn the very fabric of existence

 

[Hollie]

If the Bible is one choice and science is the other, then science is the only real choice.

Of course. There's no instruction manual for the future, especially given the unpredictability of human beings. You know, just 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat..... 300 years ago we were still burning witches in this country. ( Salem witch trials - 1692)

Any day an asteroid or super-volcano could wipe us out, if not a pandemic or nuclear war, but who

If the Bible is one choice and science is the other, then science is the only real choice.

Of course. There's no instruction manual for the future, especially given the unpredictability of human beings. You know, just 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat..... 300 years ago we were still burning witches in this country. ( Salem witch trials - 1692)

Any day an asteroid or super-volcano could wipe us out, if not a pandemic or nuclear war, but who knows where we'll be 200 years from now.

Maybe the computers will decide.

where we'll be 200 years from now.

Maybe the computers will decide.

I

True, many thought the earth was flat - but the Bible taught the earth is round, not flat:

Isaiah 40:22.
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

NW footnote on "circle" - "or, sphere"

Job 26:10
He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,+
To where light ends in darkness.

The division of lighf and darkness is called by scientists: the "terminator." Since the terminator is a circle, earth must be a sphere.

The Hebrew word translated circle in both verses is shuwg which means circle in 2 dimensions and sphere in 3 dimensions. Since the terminator is a line, chuwg means circle in Job 26:10. However, both definitions (circle/sphere) apply in Isaiah 40:22. In 3 dimensions earth is a sphere. However, when viewed from any vantage point earth appears as a circle - see astronaut photos of earth.

Galileo noticed the same problem and realized that the correct interpretation of both the Bible and scientific observation showed our solar system is heliocentric not geocentric as the Church taught. For this Galileo was excommunicated.

So, science is definitely superior to false religion. The Bible is superior to both. However, truth from science and Scripture are in harmony.

On the other hand:
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

Yes the scientific method has been used. And consensus is, in the end, the highest level of certainty that science ever achieves since science itself by definition can never be fixed. Everything is always open to new insights.
Claiming otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Yes, what is taught in science (i.e. what is popular) changes such that older scientific literature is out of date. The same is true of our literature - our older literature is out of date. And the reasons are the same, namely:

Research and the humility to change one's beliefs when research demands it. That is one reason my religion is not tradition bound.

The remarkable thing is that the Bible is much older yet is infallible!

However, that is only true when the observation is accurate or the translation is accurate - i.e. the interpretation is accurate.

What is your religion? You seem to follow the bible yet somehow claim it's not tradition-bound. I'm not aware of any religion following the bible that's not dogmatic in nature.

You saying the bible is infallible and the reason for it, seems to go against a fundamental principle of science. Namely that of falsifiability. If you only have to change your interpretation of the bible it can never be proven false, as such it has absolutely no scientific value.

Science does change. It changes when new evidence becomes available. It changes when a new hypothesis becomes available that is successfully tested and provides better explanations. What it never does is change the original assertion when it becomes unsustainable.

It reminds me of a documentary I saw on Netflix about flat earthers. They tried to use the scientific method, came up with a hypothesis, and figured a way to test that hypothesis. So far so good. They conducted their test and naturally, the test they conducted didn't support their hypothesis. What happened then was the interesting bit. Instead of questioning the hypothesis the questioned the test. You seem to do the same thing. When science undermines a previous interpretation of the bible instead of questioning the validity of the bible you choose to reinterpret it. That is as far from the scientific method you can possibly get.

 

[Crepitus]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

 

[Crepitus]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

Well that's a lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

LOL assuming is what all science does all the time. They make a guess then assume everything is what they guessed was it.

 

[the other mike]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ya? Except most of you don't ACTUALLY use the scientific method and I know over the last 30 years CONSENSUS not tests and verifiable experiments have been how climate change has been approached. We have numerous examples of scientists caught fabricating stuff on Climate Change and making statements like "it is good to scare them".

All utter nonsense. There are mountains of evidence for AGW. If 20 scientists tried to fudge data tomorrow, if would have no impact on the theory at all. The consensus derives from the evidence, not the other way around.

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

LOL assuming is what all science does all the time. They make a guess then assume everything is what they guessed was it.

True all science starts from an assumption. They then test that assumption. That assumption is then supported or isn't. Then the people report on the results. You seem to have a hard time comprehending what the scientific method entails.

 

[forkup]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.

Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.

Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually they do. It's called the hypothesis.

They don't assume the hypothesis is true. They test the truth of it.