There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

Didn't the church in Spain during the middle ages persecuted people for what they saw as heresy?

 
LOL.



Is that why you suggested it was "landlocked"?

You know that phrase actually has a meaning, right?
1655507067227.png
 

I HIGHLY recommend you purchase a dictionary. That way you can look up words like "land-locked".

I find it so strange that someone who claims to understand not just "petroleum engineering" but geology, quantum mechanics, cosmology...you even "know" the origin of the universe and what came before doesn't know what "landlocked" means.


It is a mystery.
 
I HIGHLY recommend you purchase a dictionary. That way you can look up words like "land-locked".

I find it so strange that someone who claims to understand not just "petroleum engineering" but geology, quantum mechanics, cosmology...you even "know" the origin of the universe and what came before doesn't know what "landlocked" means.


It is a mystery.
A picture is worth a thousand words.

1655510516325.png
 
the desert religions, their congregations are who represent the uninterrupted, remorseless recorded history of persecution and victimization of the innocent - cougarbear
Why did you indicate I said that? I didn't. You do a lot of the same nonsense that atheists do. You damn an entire group because of the actions of a few. The OT was part of the plan of God. It had to happen the way it did.

your name was used as the reflection of the upper highlite - not that you said it ... christian.

the desert religions are written for the particular groug at the time for their advantage there is no such relevancy as "It had to happen the way it did" - it happened as how they wanted it to happen ...

- the religion of antiquity is spoken not read and is only 6 words in length.
 
The North Pole is thermally isolated from warm marine currents, dummy.

global warming is altering the jet stream ...

However, the Arctic is warming faster than other areas of the planet, which makes the difference in temperature less distinct. This causes the polar jet stream ...

but you already new that ... just like santa clause.
 
global warming is altering the jet stream ...



but you already new that ... just like santa clause.
Yes, I knew that. Polar warming is a much more accurate description. Happens every interglacial cycle of which we are in one.

Pretty sure there are jet stream patterns so arguing change is relative. It’s the Gulf Stream which affects the distribution of heat to the northern polar region which is more important to climate change.
 
Yes, I knew that. Polar warming is a much more accurate description. Happens every interglacial cycle of which we are in one.

Pretty sure there are jet stream patterns so arguing change is relative. It’s the Gulf Stream which affects the distribution of heat to the northern polar region which is more important to climate change.

sure, "every interglacial cycle" - just like the 10 commandments ...

1655564445533.png


- the asphalt jungle has nothing to do with it.

altering the jet streams or dissipating them will have catastrophic consequences ... bing just worried about the next cup of oil to feed himself, known collectively as - desert religion mind vacuum.
 
sure, "every interglacial cycle" - just like the 10 commandments ...

View attachment 659422

- the asphalt jungle has nothing to do with it.

altering the jet streams or dissipating them will have catastrophic consequences ... bing just worried about the next cup of oil to feed himself, known collectively as - desert religion mind vacuum.
Of course the asphalt jungle and waste heat has something to do with it but they lump that into CO2.

Again… the Gulf Stream has more impact than the jet stream.
 
I have heard the argument that concrete all over the place is contributing to the warming in other places. While that is valid, I agree, it is said to dismiss other contribution, which are really there in fact, and animal agriculture is a major component of contribution to that, along with using up land and water and resources more, with destruction to natural environments and the increasing extinction of species more, along with all the dependency on petroleum and its products being a major component.
 
As far as what should be done for humankind to be able to continue to live on Earth - in the state that it is today...

  • Stop massive deforestation - we have the technology for alternative forms of construction - we no longer need to rely heavily on wood.
  • Plant trees - massive amounts of trees - fill pastures - every piece of barren land possible - and continue to do it endlessly
  • Stop allowing waste to be dumped into the oceans and seas
  • Reduce our addiction to large game meat - beef, pork, lamb, etc - this won't make most people happy but will need to be done eventually
  • We have the technology to basically end carbon emissions from motor vehicles - could easily be done within 10-15 years
  • Recycling should be mandated in every first world country on the planet and strongly encouraged in all countries
  • Encourage countries like China and India to drastically reduce their CO2 emissions - through trade incentives, etc

This really isn't that difficult. We already have the technologies in placed to accomplish all of the above - it just needs to be supported and enforced.

And before some climate change denier harps in with their usual nonsensical gibberish - I'll end it here - whether you believe climate change is affected by mankind is irrelevant - we should be doing these things BECAUSE EVERYONE SHOULD WANT TO LIVE ON A CLEANER PLANET - IF NOT FOR YOURSELF, FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
 
Just as there is no conflict between basketball and cooking. They are two different fields. No one ever says that you have to be a great home chef to be a basketball player, or that a great basketball player cannot be a person who doesn't know how to make toast. If I described my best basketball moves, it would tell you nothing about how I pan fry chicken.

They are two different fields that never need bother each other.

All of the so-called "conflicts between religion and science," such as Galileo being put under house arrest for claiming that the Earth (and everything else in the universe) goes around the sun while the church taught that the sun (and everything else) goes around the Earth, are actually conflicts between either science or religion and authoritarianism falsely draping itself with either religion or science.

The church had every right to say that the universe revolves around the Earth, and Galileo never tried to stop them, AFAK. Galileo had ever right to say that they universe revolves around the sun, but the Church did not accept that and went authoritarian on him.

Maybe I'm missing an example. If you have an example in which actual religion and actual science conflict, let me know and we can debate.




Example:

Rashi's commentary on the very first verse,

"In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth" -


 

Forum List

Back
Top