1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWho said I believe otherwise? But since you didn't present any argument in your first post, it doesn't support you over robbie.
[b]…The smart money looks at the argument and the evidence, not at the man. .…
The above assertion appears to support science over superstition.[/b]
Originally posted by FabianFnasLife can be quantified as pretty much anything EXCEPT the unborn. 😛
Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.
Therefore I start this ...[text shortened]... agical, of is it real?
Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNonsense, if it is real it isn’t superstition it simply is part of reality that
[b]…Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real? .…
The answer to all those questions is “no” -to believe otherwise would to believe in a superstition.[/b]
is beyond our abilities to measure after any fashion nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettReally, a better track record? Not sure how you measure that, but okay
Perhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
if you believe that to be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don’t believe those concepts to be superstition because some scientist says so;
lol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
I believe those concepts to be superstition because they are not based on reason nor evidence.
I have no recollection of any scientist ever telling me or even implying to me that those concepts are superstitious and I wouldn’t need to have to be told by any scientist or man to know superstition when I see it -I just use my common sense for that.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIf something is superstition, you don’t need an “argument” to demonstrate that it is superstition, you just need to point out that it is a belief about reality which is not based on reason nor evidence -that is all.
Who said I believe otherwise? But since you didn't present any argument in your first post, it doesn't support you over robbie.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat evidence/reasoning do you use in this case to support the assertion that it is “part of reality”?
Nonsense, if it is real it isn’t superstition it simply is part of reality that
is beyond our abilities to measure after any fashion nothing more.
Kelly
If a belief about reality is not in anyway based on evidence/reasoning then it is a superstition .
2 edits
Originally posted by Daemon Sinlol, there is more preconception encapsulated in this statement than even the meanest theologian or scientist could hope to achieve if he locked himself away in a room for a thousand years with nothing more than the bible and the origin of the species for companionship. it fails on the premise that theologians derive there belief system from primarily written source, however while such may be the case it is not exclusively so! many are convinced by looking at and examining the physical creation, the cosmos, or cellular structures in which they also see evidence of intelligence and harmony, or the animal kingdom which is filled with wonderful and ingenious organisms.
As opposed to "it must be true as the code of beliefs developed from the moral interpretations of various translated stories written many years after the actual events guides me to believe that an unseen omnipotent power did it"?
don't get us wrong, we think science is amazing, in fact for the theologian its not only awe inspiring and an almost spiritual experience to observe the wonders of 'creation', but a confirmation of intelligence. for me personally the most exciting thing at the moment is nanotechnology, this is almost unbelievable what can and will be achieved within the realms of medical science at present and in the future. systems that can replicate processes at a cellular level, mimic for example the functions of red blood cells, or target specific carcinogenic cells at the specific site of manifestation, honestly it is awe inspiring and amazing - hats off to science and scientists
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you saying that you know that it is beyond our abilities to measure or simply that we have not yet measured it?
Nonsense, if it is real it isn’t superstition it simply is part of reality that
is beyond our abilities to measure after any fashion nothing more.
Kelly
I think that after looking up the definition of superstition, the concept in question fits it rather well. It may be true, but without evidence in its favor, and plenty of reasons to think other wise, believing in it would be best described as superstition.
