Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

[Procrustes Stretched]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

I must admit to bowrrowing this idea from a wikipedia page.

...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

 

[elvis]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

I must admit to bowrrowing this idea from a wikipedia page.

...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

Is there a point to this thread, dipshit?

 

[Al Gunn]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

I must admit to bowrrowing this idea from a wikipedia page.

...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

Is there a point to this thread, dipshit?

Elvis, who's the gay guy in your avatar?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....



...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

Is there a point to this thread, dipshit?

Elvis, who's the gay guy in your avatar?

Sonny Corleone.

 

[KittenKoder]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

I must admit to bowrrowing this idea from a wikipedia page.

...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

Is there a point to this thread, dipshit?

Yep ... to show his own idiotic position.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet we have the Big Bang theory and the theory that life evolved from rocks, go figure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

I must admit to bowrrowing this idea from a wikipedia page.

...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

Is there a point to this thread, dipshit?

point? so you're still practicing being a man?


.

.

.


don't quit your day job, missy

 

[KittenKoder]

And yet we have the Big Bang theory and the theory that life evolved from rocks, go figure.

Your assertions are no better than DevNell's.

 

[elvis]

Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....



...fears and stupe-err-stitions.

Is there a point to this thread, dipshit?

point? so you're still practicing being a man?


.

.

.


don't quit your day job, missy

Are you always this stupid or it this a special occasion?

 

[del]

faith

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

faith

faith and belief. sigh

hey, here comes my probation officer.


'later

d.

 

[del]

faith

faith and belief. sigh

hey, here comes my probation officer.


'later

d.

see y'around the yard.

 

[geauxtohell]

Science relies on the scientific method, a methodology created by man to ensure that the venture is kept in the natural world.

You can't falsify the existence of the supernatural, so you can never introduce the supernatural into any legitimate scientific theory.

Religion relies on faith.

The two ventures are merely seperate and not mutually exclusive.

I think Dr. Ken Miller, the author of "Finding Darwin's God", does the best job of laying this out.

I only have a problem with science and/or religion when one tries to transpose itself into the other.

I.e. the "intelligent design" canard.

 

[KittenKoder]

Science relies on the scientific method, a methodology created by man to ensure that the venture is kept in the natural world.

You can't falsify the existence of the supernatural, so you can never introduce the supernatural into any legitimate scientific theory.

Religion relies on faith.

The two ventures are merely seperate and not mutually exclusive.

I think Dr. Ken Miller, the author of "Finding Darwin's God", does the best job of laying this out.

I only have a problem with science and/or religion when one tries to transpose itself into the other.

I.e. the "intelligent design" canard.

Thus is a huge problem I have with the zealots on both sides of the arguments, they actually support each other if you read most of it. Even the "worst" religions have hints of truth and never really delve into what science explains, and science does not really prove beyond what our physical world is, nor can it (at least yet) delve into anything more than the physical world.

 

[geauxtohell]

Thus is a huge problem I have with the zealots on both sides of the arguments, they actually support each other if you read most of it. Even the "worst" religions have hints of truth and never really delve into what science explains, and science does not really prove beyond what our physical world is, nor can it (at least yet) delve into anything more than the physical world.

Science can not, by it's very limitations, move beyond the natural world. The primary requirement for any hypothesis is that it can be falsified (not proven, as nothing is fully proven).

It is entirely beyond the scope of science to insert God into any theory, since in doing so, the scientist would have to be able to disprove that God existed. That question unto itself is beyond the scope of all science, philosophy, and any other discipline.

The ultimate question will always remain since it is a totalogy.

This is why Intelligent Design was defeated in a Pennsylvania court. It's not if I.D. is right or wrong, that is beyond the limits of anyone to prove. It's that I.D. is not scientific.

 

[JBeukema]

If deity exists, then the moment it interacts with the natural world it becomes a natrual phenomena than science can address

 

[Anguille]

This is why Intelligent Design was defeated in a Pennsylvania court. It's not if I.D. is right or wrong, that is beyond the limits of anyone to prove. It's that I.D. is not scientific.

Actually ID was defeated in the PA court case because it was proven to be Creationism in disguise, the teaching of which in public school science classses was banned by the the Supreme Court.

 

[JBeukema]

Actually ID was defeated in the PA court case because it was proven to be Creationism in disguise.

not much of a disguise...

 

[KittenKoder]

If deity exists, then the moment it interacts with the natural world it becomes a natrual phenomena than science can address

No, that's a myth. When something unexplainable interacts with the natural world it remains unexplainable, thus is still outside the realm of science. We will be able to see the effect and how it was accomplished, but always unable to explain what influenced it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually ID was defeated in the PA court case because it was proven to be Creationism in disguise, the teaching of which in public school science classses was banned by the the Supreme Court.

That was the legal arguement behind it, and the fact that "Of Pandas and People" had that typo was somewhat of a smoking gun.

Even I.D.'s scientific expert witnesses (i.e. Behe) and their opinions (irreducible complexity) were easily defeated by the plaintiff's lawyers on the stand.

However, it was the judges opinion taht I.D. could not meet the requirements of the scientific method.

He's right of course, and it's not terribly hard to see why. That's why the Discovery Institute spends all of it's money/time on PR and not research.