Coragyps

Now I may have to agree with Thanatos' website - I was stuck in a motel room the other evening reading the Gideons Bible, and found out how to tell if my house has leprosy: the stones will get a reddish or greenish stain. That sounds pretty useful!

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

wdog

Thanatos,

I read that website. you simply have got to be joking, right?

Mageth

from the site:

Biochemistry class according to the bible:

You're made out of dust, and a little of god's breath.

Test tomorrow.

Clutch

Aw, don't be so tough on that website. After all, isn't it impressive that the authors of the OT had puzzled out that, if you run out blood, you die?

KeithHarwood

Don't go away Tricia. We like you. You are a lot more open minded than most of the twerps who post creationist material around here.

Daydreamer

My thoughts exactly.

The central problem with religion seeping into science is this exact problem - science and religion cannot communicate because they were conscruted in completely separate worldviews.

Religion is a one way steak - a hypothesis is formed from a source of supposed authority (the Bible), seaches are conducted for facts that fit this theory and attacks are made against teh status quo. Apologetics lets religionists rework their theory slightly when needed, but they're theories will always be limited by the scope of the original text.

Science looks at the facts, forms hypotheses, runs tests, gleams more facts from the experiments performed and starts all over again.

For the most part the processes are the same between the two - facts are consulted, theories formed, etc. The one difference - and this is the key - is that science's base theories are not sacred in anyway, so there is no preset limit on where it can go and what it can propose. It is this flexibility that makes science such a wonderful tool, without which we could have never had the massive and continuous scientific rewritting of some subjects, such as Astronomy, Geography, Chemistry, and yes Biology.

Without any preset constraits, being nothing but a method of knowledge gain and its fruits thus far, science is an animal free to roam wherever it can find enough food - enough facts - to happily sustain itsself. Religion and religious science, however, is the exact same animal, starving and miserable, tied down by an apologetic leash to a 'inspired' stake.

Sometimes fruit fall into religion's home turf by happenstance, the little eugenics experiment at the end of Genesis 30 for example, but it is just that - chance. As long as religious scientists pay homage to their divine stake-in-the-ground and its accompanying leash, as long as they refuse to admit there may be factual banquets to be had outside their little circle, they will never be able to practive true, liberating science.

/rant

Tricia

opps. heh heh.

Forgot.

And I thought softball, the sport of the devil was over. Turns out it's not and I'll be gone Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

But I'll make an effort to ask some more questions when I have some later as I am still watching videos of Kent Hovind.

~Tricia

Quetzal

Hey Tricia:

After you finish watching the Hovind videos [gakkk, choke, cough] - I hope you didn't actually waste your money and buy those, btw - try renting or borrowing the PBS series "Evolution". My ten-year-old daughter thought it was the neatest thing since sliced bread. It'll provide a nice counterpoint to "Dr. Dino".

Oolon Colluphid

May I just ask why? We, and science, will make every effort not to lie to you, to explain why we think something and to say we don't know if we don't. We've told you this before. None of those claims can be made for Hovind.

Oolon

Tricia

it's not like I have a choice anyways. We are watching them in biology class.