Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Food production - science."
[b]What are you on?
By faith, I sit on my chair.
Food production - science.
Food itself - God.
Air Quality - Science.
Air itself, lungs to process it - God.
The gasoline in your truck - science.
Methane - God.
The medicines in your cupboard - science.
The chemicals from which those meds are derived - God. ...[text shortened]... it all.[/b]
Science is nothing more than observing another of God's attributes: faithfulness.[/b]
Food itself - God.
Prove it! Prove that god made food. Bet you can't. I can prove 12,000 years of selective breeding. I can show you einkorn, it still exists. Wheat was breed into existance. Nowadays, agriculture is a highly scientific endeavour what with plant breeding programmes, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc. QTL analysis is used all the time in improving genetic stocks. What about the post-harvest technologies being developed by scienctist to make sure the food arrives on your plate as fresh as possible?
"Air Quality - Science.
Air itself, lungs to process it - God."
Prove it! Prove that god made oxygen. Prove that god made lungs. I bet you can't. I can show evidence that oxygen concentration of rocks formed through time (and therefore atmospheric O2 conc) went up. Every molecule of oxygen in the atmosphere was created by the splitting of a water molecule in photosynthesis. Air quality I was referring to, both in terms of, for example, industrial pollution and the technologies being developed to reduce that pollution.
"The gasoline in your truck - science.
Methane - God."
Prove that god made that methane. Nice to see you're using methane. Anyhoo, all fossil fuels (exception of coal) represent the photosynthesis of diatoms etc in the oceans millions of years ago. After extraction they have to be refined, and I can assure you that praying will not do that. Nope it requires the fractions to be separated by their differential molecular masses. Chemical convertions (such as 'cracking', the splitting of long chain hydrocarbons into short chain hydrocarbons) have to be carried out. And who works out how all these things can be done... Not god - chemists.
"The medicines in your cupboard - science.
The chemicals from which those meds are derived - God."
Prove that god was involved in creating those chemicals. All those chemical have to be refined after they are either mined or created in the lab. Who does that? Our divine father? No! Scientists.
"The computer you're writing on - science.
I've got Windows 98, so this one's from hell."
Without atomic theory and our understanding of electricity (where does it tell us about that in the bible again?) complex electronics would be beyond our comprehension. Never fear though there are scientists out there working on it for you.
"science underpins it all.
Science is nothing more than observing another of God's attributes: faithfulness."
I've shown above that scientific advances are the basis for our current society. You've made a number of baseless assertions. You're going to need to back your points up or withdraw them. That's how debates work.
Originally posted by scottishinnzGreat Scott! You really got your knickers in a bunch. How would you go about proving God on scientific grounds, eh? Science excludes the supernatural by default. I suspect his assertions were merely rhetorical.
"Food production - science."
Food itself - God.
Prove it! Prove that god made food. Bet you can't. I can prove 12,000 years of selective breeding. I can show you einkorn, it still exists. Wheat was breed into existance. Nowadays, agriculture is a highly scientific endeavour what with plant breeding programmes, pesticides, herbicides, fertil ...[text shortened]... ions. You're going to need to back your points up or withdraw them. That's how debates work.
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvery molecule of oxygen in the atmosphere was created by the splitting of a water molecule in photosynthesis
"Food production - science."
Food itself - God.
Prove it! Prove that god made food. Bet you can't. I can prove 12,000 years of selective breeding. I can show you einkorn, it still exists. Wheat was breed into existance. Nowadays, agriculture is a highly scientific endeavour what with plant breeding programmes, pesticides, herbicides, fertil ...[text shortened]... ions. You're going to need to back your points up or withdraw them. That's how debates work.
Lots of references to Water, which came from...........
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, Science does not exclude the supernatural by default - there is simply no evidence for the supernatural that cannot be explained in other ways.
Great Scott! You really got your knickers in a bunch. How would you go about proving God on scientific grounds, eh? Science excludes the supernatural by default. I suspect his assertions were merely rhetorical.
I was not getting my proverbial knickers in a bunch, I am merely getting a little sick of creationists who sit there and tell me I have to back everything I say with facts. I'm happy to do that, but as soon as I do they claim my facts are false, and go on to make baseless assertions. They try and pick apart every argument with the whole 'but scientists never give unilateral answers', we only ever attribute confidence levels to anything. They try and show evolution, for example, to be wrong, normally using evidence that can be explained easily by other methods.
Originally posted by AMXhydrogen and oxygen.
Every molecule of oxygen in the atmosphere was created by the splitting of a water molecule in photosynthesis
Lots of references to Water, which came from...........
hydrogen was created in the big bang, oxygen is built up in the fussion reactions taking place in the sun. 12 billion years of element creation in early suns easily take care of that.
Originally posted by scottishinnzProve it! Prove that god made food.
Prove it! Prove that god made oxygen. Prove that god made lungs.
Prove that god made that methane.
Prove that god was involved in creating those chemicals.
How about we prove your latent desire to know God by the fact that you spend a disproportionate amount of time in a forum specifically labled "Spirituality," instead? That would appear to be easier than the challenges you put forth.
Unless, of course, you would take as proof that the unseen causes the seen to exist. But then again, a scientist of your stature would never concede anything as fact, without verification via the tools available to him. If you can't measure it, it surely does not exist, correct?
Pity the people who lived before you came into existence: they simply never lived!
Justice? Doesn't exist.
Patriotism? Nada.
Love? Please.
Truth? What is truth?
I've shown above that scientific advances are the basis for our current society.
Contrarily, you have exhibited an above-average understanding of basic biological information, specifically related to a few areas common to man in civilized societies. Take away any one or all of the advances to which you alluded, and- gasp!- society trudges on, albeit inconvenienced to varying degrees.
The basis for our civilization's genesis was a subjugation of the earth, sent forth from God, received by kings. All of history supports this principle, including a nation founded as early as 230 years ago.
That's how debates work.
Indeed.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow's about I state my distaste for Christians and their bad mouthing of science as the reason for my continued visitation of the spirituality section.
[b]Prove it! Prove that god made food.
Prove it! Prove that god made oxygen. Prove that god made lungs.
Prove that god made that methane.
Prove that god was involved in creating those chemicals.
How about we prove your latent desire to know God by the fact that you spend a disproportionate amount of time in a forum specifica ...[text shortened]... cluding a nation founded as early as 230 years ago.
That's how debates work.
Indeed.[/b]
I see you have reverted to mocking me - that's fine, if it's the only dialectual tool you have left in your bag.
Justice is a (human made) concept - a theoretical idea. It has no mass nor energy.
Patriotism, again a theoretical idea. Especially towards an (normally) unnatural grouping of people called a country. Most people within a specific country are not related and do not know each other. America and Canada are on the same land mass, speak the same language, are roughly the same culturally, and yet are different countries.
Love - love is a word used to describe a feeling. This feeling is triggered by biochemical changes in the brain (documented). Love is actually the most 'real' of these since there is a physical basis for love.
Truth. Ah, what is truth? That's a question that has plagued philosophers for centuries. Personally I'd say it is a documentable fact, of an occurance, object or idea that has been shown to exist (or explains something which exists).
I cannot believe that you neglected to read my sentence thoroughly enough to note that I stated 'current society'!
Are you saying that without the basics of our current society, such as an abundant, varied food supply, mass transport, electronics and / or communications, pharmaceutcals, medicine etc, that society would not be fundamentally altered? I cannot believe that even you would be so naive.
"The basis for our civilization's genesis was a subjugation of the earth, sent forth from God, received by kings. All of history supports this principle, including a nation founded as early as 230 years ago."
I think you may actually mean the 'percieved subjugation of the earth'.
If you want your statement to stand you will have to provide proof.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow's about I state my distaste for Christians and their bad mouthing of science as the reason for my continued visitation of the spirituality section.
Glutton for punishment, eh? Perhaps you have been visiting threads I've not; I have not read one post from any Christian "bad mouthing" science. What is there to bad mouth? Science is science! It's about as neutral as it gets... when properly applied, of course.
The slams have been against so-called scientists who hide behind the cloak of science, while propagating an ideology. While not the majority, they certainly are the vocal forefront.
I see you have reverted to mocking me - that's fine, if it's the only dialectual tool you have left in your bag.
That's not my bag, baby!
America and Canada are on the same land mass, speak the same language, are roughly the same culturally, and yet are different countries.
Thank you, President Bush. Any other insights?
Justice is a (human made) concept - a theoretical idea.
By theoretical, you likely aren't referring to the root of the word, which means (make sure you're sitting down for this one) "observable." Go figure.
Love - love is a word used to describe a feeling.
You're a regular Barry Manilow. Stick to changing out the slides for the real scientists, and stop (STOP!) writing your inane love-lorn poetry between cleaning the petri dishes.
This feeling is triggered by biochemical changes in the brain (documented).
Or, maybe, just maybe, those changes are due to the actual events associated with the same? I dunno. Supposedly, anger has no such register on the cortexes.
Moreover, the newly-formed defense pleadings will be: he couldn't help it, your honor, his brain was infused with anger chemicals, so he just had to sing Barry Manilow songs until the deceased's ears bled, which in turn, led to their untimely demise.
Truth. Ah, what is truth?
Ain't that the truth. Wait. That ain't the truth. Wait. The truth, that ain't.
I cannot believe that you neglected to read my sentence thoroughly enough to note that I stated 'current society'!
How foolish of me to keep you to the rules of debate. One topic is raised, to which sides are drawn and hopefully successfully supported, and the thing is decided. The original issue was whether Western civilization rested on science or faith.
When I said there would be inconveniences of varying degrees, that meant just that: there would be varying degrees of inconveniences, should society be lacking any of the advancements you highlighted. I am THAT naive.
I think you may actually mean the 'percieved subjugation of the earth'.
I mean exactly what I said. If I wanted to misspell an adverb and put it before the verb used, I would have done just that thing, so as to change the meaning. You may have been drinking from the code-dated eggnog, so we'll just let it go for now.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWow, you demolished my case through a single spelling mistake - and never a single fact fired. Wow.
[b]How's about I state my distaste for Christians and their bad mouthing of science as the reason for my continued visitation of the spirituality section.
Glutton for punishment, eh? Perhaps you have been visiting threads I've not; I have not read one post from any Christian "bad mouthing" science. What is there to bad mouth? Science is science ...[text shortened]... aning. You may have been drinking from the code-dated eggnog, so we'll just let it go for now.[/b]
You stated Western society - when I brought it up I never stated Western society. If you feel however that my points are invalid you may feel free to object - with correct factual references though.
You really should read the book 'Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years' by Jared Diamond.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWow, you demolished my case through a single spelling mistake - and never a single fact fired. Wow.
You demolished your own by not formulating one.
You stated Western society - when I brought it up I never stated Western society.
A little difficult, then to explain this one, also from you:
You speak as if you disprove of this, however, as I've pointed out to Kelly on numerous occassion, science works, and it's the bedrock of our society.
On the heels of that outrageous comment, I corrected you to say that faith was the bedrock of Western civilization, and science has become the unfaithful mistress.
You really should read the book 'Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years' by Jared Diamond.
My book card is full, right now. Thank you for thinking of me, however.