1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut why are you insisting that they should not try? Surely their failure is just as scientific and meaningful as it would have been if they succeeded? Should we not do science simply because we don't like the results? Should we continue to believe things that we know go against science?
We cannot use any science to explain miracles, and we cannot change the outcome of an experiment by religious methods.
But you can always religiously wonder of the grandeur of natural phenomena, noone stops you. But this is not mixing.
Astrologists have tried to use scientific methods to prove that astrology works, they have always failed. Homeopath eligious matters, they will always fail. If it doesn't, then its' not a part of the religion.
There are also aspects of religion that science does confirm. For example it is quite common for history to be an important part of a religion and some parts of that history can be confirmed through science.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we set up an scientific experiment to prove that miracles are possible, then we should also scientificly accept that results. This has been done, and no experiments have shown any religious miracles. The we also should accept that scientific fact that miracles are not among scientific phenomena of nature.
But why are you insisting that they should not try? Surely their failure is just as scientific and meaningful as it would have been if they succeeded? Should we not do science simply because we don't like the results? Should we continue to believe things that we know go against science?
There are also aspects of religion that science does confirm. For ...[text shortened]... n important part of a religion and some parts of that history can be confirmed through science.
But you can still include miracles in your religious views, but that has nothing to do with science.
Show me how you can set up a scientific experiement about any religious thing. I can propose several experiments. It's (as an example) easy to prove that dinosaurs died out long before the first hominide set its foot on earth.
My mind is not set, I'm open for changes. Until I'm convinced my statement holds: Religion and science cannot ever be mixed.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat depends on how you define a miracle.
If we set up an scientific experiment to prove that miracles are possible, then we should also scientificly accept that results. This has been done, and no experiments have shown any religious miracles.
The we also should accept that scientific fact that miracles are not among scientific phenomena of nature.
No experiment has ever shown that. It is possible that every experiment to date has shown that no event claimed to be a miracle has provably violated the known laws of science, but that it totally different from a claim that miracles do not happen. Especially if you do not define a miracle as a violation of known laws. I lot of theists I have talked to say that they believe that God general works within the laws of science for most of his miracles.
But you can still include miracles in your religious views, but that has nothing to do with science.
And I disagree with you here too. If you are honest with yourself you should never include something in your religious view that you believe simultaneously contradicts the laws of science.
My mind is not set, I'm open for changes. Until I'm convinced my statement holds: Religion and science cannot ever be mixed.
I think that your view point leads to the belief that it is OK to be delusional. You seem to think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in invisible pink unicorns in your fridge so long as you don't bother to explain it scientifically. I disagree. If you truly believe there are pink unicorns in your fridge there is nothing wrong with investigating it scientifically.
Originally posted by twhiteheadReligion and science cannot mix, that's my statement. It doesn't say that I'm against religion per se, everyone can belive in what they want, even if they belive in dinosaurs in Noah's Ark. When I object is when they say it is scientifically true, becasue it isn't true, there were never Dinosaurs in the Ark, and that is provable scientifically.
That depends on how you define a miracle.
[b]The we also should accept that scientific fact that miracles are not among scientific phenomena of nature.
No experiment has ever shown that. It is possible that every experiment to date has shown that no event claimed to be a miracle has provably violated the known laws of science, but that it totally ...[text shortened]... are pink unicorns in your fridge there is nothing wrong with investigating it scientifically.[/b]
Let's go to the miracle thing. First we define what a miracle really is. Then we scientifically set up an experiment. Then we interprete the result with scientific methods and come to a conclusion.
To walk on water is not a miracle, I do that every winter. It's called ice. But to walk on water holding me because I belive in the right god, that's a miracle. This is easy to set up. If I see only one man walking on water, I will be convinced in its truth, if it can be veryfied its not a hoax of some kind. (Magicians can certanly make us belive anything, but that doesn't count.)
I let you believe in what you want, and hope that you let me believe in what I want. If you belive in miracles, that's fine with me. But I don't accept that you think that your (or any others view) is the only Truth in the world, and anyone's other view that differs from yours is false. I don't hold the Truth myself. What I believe as truth can perhaps be false to others, and vice versa, it's okay by me. (Somewhere in some Forum, I've defined the difference between 'truth' and 'Truth'.)
How would you set up a scientific experiment that gives us any new religious knowledge?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo, basically, you have no problem with the idea of an ark so big it could
Religion and science cannot mix, that's my statement. It doesn't say that I'm against religion per se, everyone can belive in what they want, even if they belive in dinosaurs in Noah's Ark. When I object is when they say it is scientifically true, becasue it isn't true, there were never Dinosaurs in the Ark, and that is provable scientifically.
house pairs from the entire fauna we see today, but that it could also hold
dinosaurs?
I see your point. Dinosaurs are simply too big to fit in a boat. In pairs,
none the less.
😲
Originally posted by FabianFnasAh Fabian, there was no need to host the dinos in the Ark; the dinos were all superb swimmers, like their cousins the crocodiles. And they loved the fish, so they had plenty o food😵
Religion and science cannot mix, that's my statement. It doesn't say that I'm against religion per se, everyone can belive in what they want, even if they belive in dinosaurs in Noah's Ark. When I object is when they say it is scientifically true, becasue it isn't true, there were never Dinosaurs in the Ark, and that is provable scientifically.
Let's g ...[text shortened]... you set up a scientific experiment that gives us any new religious knowledge?
Originally posted by black beetleThen you don't agree with our good christian friend KellyJay?
Ah Fabian, there was no need to host the dinos in the Ark; the dinos were all superb swimmers, like their cousins the crocodiles. And they loved the fish, so they had plenty o food😵
But you actually do agree with him that there actually were dinosaurs at the time of Noah, right?
Originally posted by JigtieIf someone actually belives that, I'm okay with it. But I'm not okay when he says that it can be scientifically proven, that there are proofs, and "I'll show you the proofs!", but they never come. That's fraud, and a non-christian behaviour.
So, basically, you have no problem with the idea of an ark so big it could
house pairs from the entire fauna we see today, but that it could also hold
dinosaurs?
I see your point. Dinosaurs are simply too big to fit in a boat. In pairs,
none the less.
😲
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think you have a language problem. It is scientifically proven big time; or you think that the crocs cannot swimmmmmmmmmm????????
If someone actually belives that, I'm okay with it. But I'm not okay when he says that it can be scientifically proven, that there are proofs, and "I'll show you the proofs!", but they never come. That's fraud, and a non-christian behaviour.
😵
Originally posted by black beetleWhat has crocs to do with anything? Of course they can swin.
I think you have a language problem. It is scientifically proven big time; or you think that the crocs cannot swimmmmmmmmmm????????
😵
But can freshwater crocs swim in salty waters? I don't know.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou should be against religion because it results in behavior that is detrimental. You should be against delusion in general. You should be trying to persuade theists to think logically and scientifically rather than saying "go be delusional for all I care".
It doesn't say that I'm against religion per se, everyone can belive in what they want, even if they belive in dinosaurs in Noah's Ark.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you say so... 😞
You should be against religion because it results in behavior that is detrimental. You should be against delusion in general. You should be trying to persuade theists to think logically and scientifically rather than saying "go be delusional for all I care".
Originally posted by FabianFnasThey swim like off-shore powerboats coz the salty water keeps them afloat easier, so they are not obliged to make too much effort when they are fishing their tasty fishes; just check L= 1/2 Cl p AU^2 and you will see it on your own. For your information, Cl is the lift coefficient, p the liquid density, A the surface of the body of the croc which is vertical to the flow, and U the speed of the croc in relation to the liquid;
What has crocs to do with anything? Of course they can swin.
But can freshwater crocs swim in salty waters? I don't know.
Originally posted by black beetleOkay, crocs can float in salty waters. What about a perch (perca fluviatilis)? Does it survive long in salty waters? Or do they float too, belly up, after a while?
They swim like off-shore powerboats coz the salty water keeps them afloat easier, so they are not obliged to make too much effort when they are fishing their tasty fishes; just check L= 1/2 Cl p AU^2 and you will see it on your own. For your information, Cl is the lift coefficient, p the liquid density, A the surface of the body of the croc which is vertical to the flow, and U the speed of the croc in relation to the liquid;
Don't let us go further out off topic. I think we should stop there. Crocs nor perch does not have anything with dinosaurs to do, not at all. That deserves another thread of its own.
Originally posted by FabianFnasDinos and crocs have the same common ancestor, and you know this fact thanks to the theory of the evolution. But I want not to dig this matter further because I don't have time to conduct a deep research. The most important is just to alert you that the dinos were swimmin fine and that therefore Noah was not at all obliged to host them in his Ark. Not at all.
Okay, crocs can float in salty waters. What about a perch (perca fluviatilis)? Does it survive long in salty waters? Or do they float too, belly up, after a while?
Don't let us go further out off topic. I think we should stop there. Crocs nor perch does not have anything with dinosaurs to do, not at all. That deserves another thread of its own.
I hope you comprehend.-