Guybrush

And you give no indication at all to understand any of the arguments I've been formulating and you avoid answering my questions or criticism too, but alright. What do you think of as a "scientific fact" then? It's not a term I've used so far in any of my posts, but if that's what you want to discuss, let's hear your definition.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Neapolitan

The reason I used "scientific fact" is because it as a statement reveals something true about nature, & the universe, it is objectively true and verifiable, something that is understood as being true even before it was discovered. So if God created the the Heavens and the Earth as the Bible says He did, why learrning facts about the universe contradict God as the creator?

"Science" to some has broaden it meaning to inlude technology and the inventions made possible form the increase of scientific knowledge. An example of "Science" (in the broad sense of the word) and Christianity that would not being compatible would be embryonic stem cell research. So that why I used scientific fact and not just plain science.

GK Chesterton said "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

__________________

cardboard adolescent

Have you tried the Christian ideal? I would start by giving away your computer.

Neapolitan

It's not what you own, it's what you do with what you own.

__________________

SATCHMO

I dare you to tell me you don't have porn tabbed right now

Neapolitan

I joined MB to talk about music and read about it, I post in this thread to exchange philosophical ideas, if you want to talk about porn then start the thread yourself, I won't bother talking about religion and philosophy in your porn thread - so don't do it here.

__________________

SATCHMO

Well you're doing a fantastic job of it. Keep at it.

Guybrush

Well, you do realize this argument has nothing to do with the points I've made. When you replied, I thought you were having a discussion with me, not just yourself. You seem to try to refute my arguments on grounds and points that I never even brought up.

I wrote that religion comes into conflict with other ideas like science - basically in the hearts and minds of people. For example I think many people have a hard time believing the world was flooded and two of each animals were saved by Noah who had built a boat. Such an event would have left behind abundant clues and evidence. Furthermore, it's just not doable. You can't save all the world's animals in a boat. I mean, even if you did, the genetic variation on which to base future populations would be horribly low - and so on and so on. In heads of many people, it comes into conflict with reason. I know that to be true because it happens in my own mind so it must happen in the minds of others. However, not long ago a lot more people believed this. Science, reason and education is chipping away at these ideas and stories that make up religions.

Of course there was more to it than that, but it's the jist of it and it's also an argument your philosophical ponderings don't refute or even address. If you want to discuss against me, I'd rather you argue against the points I bring up and not the ones you make up yourself.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Axiomatic Wiki

Just wanted to know if you think that evolution is really something that is not objectively a fact? Seeing that we have observed it in labs, and know for a fact, without a doubt, that macro evolution exists. It just seems to me that you might not believe so, looking at these two statements and how they contradict each other(If I am reading them correctly).

Pardon my curiosity on your opinion of this matter

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/AxiomaticWiki

Guybrush

Evolution is, indeed, the most documented and well supported scientific theory there is. Earlier, I compared scientific theories to pyramids where every building block was a publication, experiment, whatever that supports that theory. It's a good analogy I think because removing one building block won't tear down the whole pyramid and you can keep adding to it making it bigger in the future.

If that analogy was true, then the evolution pyramid would indeed be the biggest of them.

Facts in philosophical discussion on the net quickly get shot down by the argument that you can't know anything for certain except perhaps "I think therefore I am". If that's you formulating that in your mind right now, just think of a fact as something that has never been refuted, is the basis for much of our understanding of the world and has a lot of empirical evidence supporting it rather than something which is undeniably true.

__________________
Something Completely Different