aberdeen

I agree that religion changes more than science and to me, is more useless. Science has its up side and its downside--upside is like the vacinne for polio, downside is like Hiroshima and worse. Science overall arguably is more of a negative than a positive when weapons of war are considered.

And then there is what is true. Neither science nor religion changes what in reality, is true. We can believe all we want in various religious doctrines or various scientific theories and our belief does nothing to alter the validity or invalidity of them.

I see by your reply that you automatically assume I am defendiing Christianity because I don't have much faith in science. Have you ever considered the possibility that both are way off the mark? And have you ever considered the probability that the Creator doesn't give a monkey's ass about either one of them?

MortalWombat

If science is so off the mark, then why is it that the laser beam in your CD player just happens to act according to quantum-mechanical principles? Why is it that one cannot accurately describe the motion of a satellite in orbit around a massive object without using relativity? Why is it that if you have Type I diabetes, you can be successfully treated with injections of insulin? Why is it that smallpox has been eliminated from the face of the earth only after the introduction of worldwide vaccination programs?

And guess what. Science doesn't need people to believe in it in order for it to work.

Ad Astra

Science is self-correcting. Religion reinforces its lies (or at least the ones it can't change when no one is looking) with faith, more lies, and fraud.

I don't have faith in science either. I have good reason to accept science.

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no Creator? Judging from your posts, I really doubt you have.

aberdeen

Actually, I used to be an athiest... I asked the Creator to prove to me that he exists if in fact, he does... And he did. I have found from experience that if one trusts in science, the Bible or Christianity, than one is invariably disappointed. Then again, if one uses the name "Jesus", then the Creator will not only prove he exists if asked but also, prove that Christianity and science have nothing in common with either Jesus, the Creator and/or, what is true.

I noticed in you list of scientific achievements, you left out Hiroshima, nuclear waste, smog, global warming, vanishing species, healthy drinking water and etc. A true science always weighs both sides of the equation and doing such will invariably find modern science weighed in the balances and found severely wanting. Armageddon anyone?

Doctor X

En passant. . . .

of course, here I pontificate without the reference in front of me . . . however, some scholars [Appeal to Authority, Argument to Ignorance.--Ed.] Hush! some scholars find a different intention behind the often confusing dietary laws.

SCIENCE!!!

Regarding trusting it, I must paraphrase Penn Jellet (sp?) of Penn & Teller (in)fame. Comparing science to flim-flam and other beliefs:

Okay . . . vaccination is not a "cure" but you get the idea.

Nothing is Constant but Change:

Sarpedon makes a very good point about the changes in religion. I would expand upon it--religion develops right after the start. One thing certain from biblical scholarship is the amount of development from "day one"--Junior gets hung up/escapes to found a nudist colony in Jamaica--to the composition of texts--Synoptic Gospels, a great deal of competing conceptions of the religion arose.

No one knows what the "correct" version was. Even if Junior lived to a ripe-old age, religions change as they age--particularly after the founding figure "bites the dust."

Of course, one like to think he has the "right" religion--EXACTLY THE SAME as it was in year whatever.

Now take the OT . . . please . . . you have layers of religious thinking all in the same book--the Chronicler never expected to be there with the DH . . . the J writer did not expect to by melded with a P writer . . . blah . . . blah.

By what criteria of certainty does one have, then?

Returning to science, one of the mantras is "falsibility." It is an important point in critical thinking.

Is religion "falsifiable."

Yes . . . in certain circumstances.

The belief in a particular flood myth rather falls when the myth is shown to be contradicted by evidence.

Similarly, the "young Earthers" fall to science.

Even, "so-and-so" founding figure preached "such-and-such" falls when someone can find textual and other evidence that said "such-and-such" arose from a bishop three hundred years later after a particularly malignant case of piles.

Thus, evolution and natural selection have survived the tests thus far--unlike the Lemarkan version of past, whereas the creationist theories have not.

And that is that.

--J.D.

aberdeen

Yeah, but do you really believe that Natural Selection will survive the test of thermonuclear war? Just today on CBSNews.com, it was announced that many scientists are predicting nuclear war within a decade if Bush and the other Bozo's of international illrepute fail to mend their ways. And what will we say about the legacy of our modern science then? That is, if anyone is left on the planet to comment.

Consider this before believing too much in modern science...

Global Village Idiot:
http://richardaberdeen.com/uncommons...lageidiot.html

Doctor X

aberdeen:

Your criticisms represent a non sequiturs.

Does not add or subtract from the evidence that natural selection occurs.

Various scientists have been predicting "doom and gloom" of this sort and have, thus far, failed in the prediction. To return this to Biblical Criticism [Cue Thunderclap.--Ed.] their predictions have been about as reliable as biblical prophecy that was not post hoc.

Someone predicted another depression before 2000. . . .

Whatever, none of this addresses the topic of errors in the Bible. and the other Bozo's of international illrepute fail to mend their ways.

Name that fallacy.

--J.D.

keyser_soze

edited by moderator

GakuseiDon

Again with the "4 legs"! Hawkingfan, where does Lev 11 say that any flying insect has 4 legs? Please reread what I wrote earlier. It says "flying insects that crawl on all four (feet). The ancient Hebrews *obviously* regarded the first four legs as having "feet for crawling". That makes sense if you look at a diagram of a grasshopper, where the front four legs are pointed forward, and tucked under the body.

Here's a science question for you! We know that a grasshopper has 6 legs. How many feet does it have, IYO? Zero or 6? Please use science to validate your answer. What would an entomologist say?

Hawkingfan

Changing the subject to Ecclesiastes is presenting a strawman. "No universal laws from true perspective..."? Is that a universal law? How do you know what the LOGOS perspective is? That sounds like cowpie to me. How do you know what the ultimate reality is? If "Language itself inhibits us from writing anything exactly true," then is THAT statement exactly true? What creatures had 4 legs?
In another perspective, humans have 4 legs? I think you are twisting the English language to suit your own needs. Do you have a dictionary?