Originally posted by daniel58That must be just about the worst definition of science I ever heard.
Science, what causes gravity, black holes, friction, wind, light, etc. etc.
I believe I said this to somebody else in another thread but science isn’t necessarily about causes.
Possibly the best example of this the science of pure mathematics because that is just about as far from relevance to causation as you can get.
My best shot is:
“Science is knowledge gained by scientific method and all the fields of study that use scientific method“
-that’s not a perfect definition but it is a lot better.
And scientific method is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Originally posted by karoly aczelPerhaps I don't mean the same as you the word: coexist.
"Creation is religon"-science is like a religon too . I mean in the sense that it is like a different religon that believes in different things.
So as long as it is a peaceful religon it should be able to coexist with the other religons; even if they worship different gods!
I say that a scientific mind cannot believe in creation. A religious mind can believe in evolution, but must then deny creation.
And of course we can have religious people and science people in the same room. But creation in itself cannot ever be a part of science.
Originally posted by StarrmanScience; the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Okay, lets try again then. Please can you define science in your own words, because I'm pretty sure you don't really understand what it entails.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnascoexist: two or more parties inhabiting the same region of space at the same time.
Perhaps I don't mean the same as you the word: coexist.
I say that a scientific mind cannot believe in creation. A religious mind can believe in evolution, but must then deny creation.
And of course we can have religious people and science people in the same room. But creation in itself cannot ever be a part of science.
Anyway I think there are way more anomolies in peoples thinking than your 'black and white' model would seem to indicate.
A lot of people have all kind weird twisted thoughts that incorporate science and religon. Its just that not everyone is as outspoken as .. well .. me for example.
Originally posted by karoly aczelNah, I don't think I think in a 'black or white' and only one of the two.
coexist: two or more parties inhabiting the same region of space at the same time.
Anyway I think there are way more anomolies in peoples thinking than your 'black and white' model would seem to indicate.
A lot of people have all kind weird twisted thoughts that incorporate science and religon. Its just that not everyone is as outspoken as .. well .. me for example.
I accept various religions, various beliefs. But I don't like the way creationsists do - when they're saying it's science. Because is isn't. It's religion. And you cannot apply scientific methods in religious stuff. The result you get is just not scientific.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYep,I hear you.
Nah, I don't think I think in a 'black or white' and only one of the two.
I accept various religions, various beliefs. But I don't like the way creationsists do - when they're saying it's science. Because is isn't. It's religion. And you cannot apply scientific methods in religious stuff. The result you get is just not scientific.
You should be able to apply scientific methods to at least some 'religous stuff'.
That is one of the great debates in the 'Great Debate' ,if there is such a thing.
Your position has been noted and it seems to be a good 'stronghold' for now.
Originally posted by karoly aczelThis is why I cannot see the christian religion (or any one of the abrahamian religions) is that the core cannot be studied - god himself. If we can scientifically prove the existance of god, then there might be a chance to treat that religion scientifically. This means that I will don't change my opinon until then
Yep,I hear you.
You should be able to apply scientific methods to at least some 'religous stuff'.
That is one of the great debates in the 'Great Debate' ,if there is such a thing.
Your position has been noted and it seems to be a good 'stronghold' for now.
What will I think if someone did that? I (for one) would be happy. Because then we have a brand new field in science! Is this possible? Is the pope gay?
Originally posted by FabianFnasin my own stupid words:' anything is possible'
This is why I cannot see the christian religion (or any one of the abrahamian religions) is that the core cannot be studied - god himself. If we can scientifically prove the existance of god, then there might be a chance to treat that religion scientifically. This means that I will don't change my opinon until then
What will I think if someone did that ...[text shortened]... be happy. Because then we have a brand new field in science! Is this possible? Is the pope gay?
in the words of kurt cobain:'everyone is gay'
🙂that one still makes me laugh!
Originally posted by Dance Master MCYes it can; there are two possible arguments to defend the possibility of coexistence
Well, Can it?
1. Up to now science can explain how universe and life evolved (through evolution) but not how it came into existence; religions tell us how it all started (by creation, not just the biblical version; there are many other mindblowing stories how it all started). As long as science cannot explain with certainty how something can arise from nothingness there is room for coexistence of Creationism and Evolution.
2. Axiomatic science can never claim to possess the truth of anything. Her approach to the true nature of things is like a asymptote. So, whatever small the probability might be, there is always space to explain our world with creationism. (Although I wouldn't bet a dime on it myself.)
(3) Someone ever considered the possibility both versions of our decription of our reality are wrong? In that case Creationism and Evolution coexist in error 😉
Originally posted by souvereinGod doesn't error.
Yes it can; there are two possible arguments to defend the possibility of coexistence
1. Up to now science can explain how universe and life evolved (through evolution) but not how it came into existence; religions tell us how it all started (by creation, not just the biblical version; there are many other mindblowing stories how it all started). As lon ...[text shortened]... decription of our reality are wrong? In that case Creationism and Evolution coexist in error 😉