Will Science??.....
- Thread starter BaSICCally
- Start date
I've talked about this many times. Look into the prophecies of the Old Testiment regarding the New Testiment. Prophecies from Izequiel, Daniel, etc....
These people had visions which were recorded long before they were fulfilled.
So in a way at least, religion has been able to predict the future.
That only applies to the Catholic church.
LOL! Naw bro, not like that. But through education.
At least religious education. People with true faith will protect what they believe is God's creation.
Look into quantum physics.
I'm sure you've heard about placebo pills (sugar pills).
Pills which have no medical drugs but do the job.
The trick is into fooling the person taking them into thinking it's going to work. In other words, faith.
Well anyways there's been studies about the effects of prayer on ill people. It's been well documented now that there is a power in prayer, the more people pray for you, the more effective the prayer is.
Peep this out:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,193084,00.html
This is just a small example but people having been studying the effects of prayer for years now. Their conclusion, it works. Even when the ill person is not aware of the prayers....
Why is that?
Why can't evolution just be one of God's law of nature?
Anyways, I won't argue against that. I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry but you just described yourself.
Well maybe you're under the impression that someones fabricated lies are truthful.
I mean there is people out there who strive on making up false accusations regarding the scripture.
We talked about these alleged contradictions in the past.
But feel free to bring into light anything that you might have in mind.
They don't reject science, they reject certain scientific theories.
Remember, Islam has made many contributions to science.
Hahahhaha.... We've talked about this before man.
The world is this fucked up already, even with a big brother religion watching over most of the people in the world. It would only be more chaotic with out religion.
This is a no brainer.
Read what "athiest" Joseph Campbell has written about religion and mythology.
Read "the Power of Myth"....
I actually got this shit on DVD if you are intrested, I can shoot you a copy.
But peep this link in the meantime:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=171
These people had visions which were recorded long before they were fulfilled.
So in a way at least, religion has been able to predict the future.
That only applies to the Catholic church.
LOL! Naw bro, not like that. But through education.
At least religious education. People with true faith will protect what they believe is God's creation.
Look into quantum physics.
I'm sure you've heard about placebo pills (sugar pills).
Pills which have no medical drugs but do the job.
The trick is into fooling the person taking them into thinking it's going to work. In other words, faith.
Well anyways there's been studies about the effects of prayer on ill people. It's been well documented now that there is a power in prayer, the more people pray for you, the more effective the prayer is.
Peep this out:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,193084,00.html
This is just a small example but people having been studying the effects of prayer for years now. Their conclusion, it works. Even when the ill person is not aware of the prayers....
Why is that?
Why can't evolution just be one of God's law of nature?
Anyways, I won't argue against that. I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry but you just described yourself.
Well maybe you're under the impression that someones fabricated lies are truthful.
I mean there is people out there who strive on making up false accusations regarding the scripture.
We talked about these alleged contradictions in the past.
But feel free to bring into light anything that you might have in mind.
They don't reject science, they reject certain scientific theories.
Remember, Islam has made many contributions to science.
Hahahhaha.... We've talked about this before man.
The world is this fucked up already, even with a big brother religion watching over most of the people in the world. It would only be more chaotic with out religion.
This is a no brainer.
Read what "athiest" Joseph Campbell has written about religion and mythology.
Read "the Power of Myth"....
I actually got this shit on DVD if you are intrested, I can shoot you a copy.
But peep this link in the meantime:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=171
The Power of Myth
Joseph Campbell, with Bill Moyers,
(Doubleday: NY 1988) pp. 32-4
Moyers: Don't you think modern Americans have rejected the ancient idea of nature as a divinity because it would have kept us from achieving dominance over nature?
How can you cut down trees and uproot the land and turn the rivers into real estate without killing God? ... Scientists are beginning to talk quite openly about the Gaia principle.
Campbell: There you are, the whole planet as an organism.
M: Mother Earth. Will new myths come from this image?
C: Well, something might. ... And the only myth that is going to be worth thinking about in the immediate future is one that is talking about the planet, not the city, not these people, but the planet, and everybody on it. That's my main thought for what the future myth is going to be. ...
M: So you suggest that from this begins the new myth of our time?
C: Yes, this is the ground of what the myth is to be. It's already here: the eye of reason, not of my nationality; the eye of reason, not of my religious community; the eye of reason, not of my linguistic community. Do you see? And this would be the philosophy for the planet, not for this group, that group, or the other group. When you see the earth from the moon, you don't see any divisions there of nations or states. This might be the symbol, really, for the new mythology to come. That is the country that we are going to be celebrating. And those are the people that we are one with.
M: No one embodies that ethic to me more clearly in the works you have collected than Chief Seattle.
C: Chief Seattle was one of the last spokesmen of the Paleolithic moral order. In about 1852, the United States Government inquired about buying the tribal lands for the arriving people of the United States, and Chief Seattle wrote a marvelous letter in reply. His letter expresses the moral, really, of our whole discussion.
"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. ...
Joseph Campbell, with Bill Moyers,
(Doubleday: NY 1988) pp. 32-4
Moyers: Don't you think modern Americans have rejected the ancient idea of nature as a divinity because it would have kept us from achieving dominance over nature?
How can you cut down trees and uproot the land and turn the rivers into real estate without killing God? ... Scientists are beginning to talk quite openly about the Gaia principle.
Campbell: There you are, the whole planet as an organism.
M: Mother Earth. Will new myths come from this image?
C: Well, something might. ... And the only myth that is going to be worth thinking about in the immediate future is one that is talking about the planet, not the city, not these people, but the planet, and everybody on it. That's my main thought for what the future myth is going to be. ...
M: So you suggest that from this begins the new myth of our time?
C: Yes, this is the ground of what the myth is to be. It's already here: the eye of reason, not of my nationality; the eye of reason, not of my religious community; the eye of reason, not of my linguistic community. Do you see? And this would be the philosophy for the planet, not for this group, that group, or the other group. When you see the earth from the moon, you don't see any divisions there of nations or states. This might be the symbol, really, for the new mythology to come. That is the country that we are going to be celebrating. And those are the people that we are one with.
M: No one embodies that ethic to me more clearly in the works you have collected than Chief Seattle.
C: Chief Seattle was one of the last spokesmen of the Paleolithic moral order. In about 1852, the United States Government inquired about buying the tribal lands for the arriving people of the United States, and Chief Seattle wrote a marvelous letter in reply. His letter expresses the moral, really, of our whole discussion.
"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. ...
Well Mr. L,
"If life is so random, then how would science ever be able to pin down the
cause and effects of life as we know it."
The current theories on the origin of life don't really have anything to
do with randomness. The idea is that if a planet supports water, then
the chances of life originating there are good. I won't go into the
details of chemistry as how this can happen as you can read a ton of info
on it off the net, but I'll point out one of the most famous
experiments of the 20th century (first done in the 1960s I think) where
an early earth environment recreation in a laboratory exposed to
electricty (lightening) produced complex amino acids (organic building
blocks).
For people like yourself who are not able (or willing) to comprehend
scientific theory through the scientific method, perhaps one day we will
visit an early aquatic planet. Even that falls into the realm of
scientific study. Your statement doesn't even make sense. You
obviously have no concept of randomness. Let's say the explanation for
the creation of life is arbitrary. We can still deduce and limit the
possibilities by proven facts we know today. This leaves a finite set
of possibilities which will be narrowed down with new facts, thus
leading to only a handful of possiblities.
Not confusing the origin of life with the theory of evolution through
natural selection, and assuming we don't know how life was originated,
do you have a technical problem with the theory of evolution and how it
serves as an explantion of one species deriving from another?
Also, just for your information, in scientific terms a hypothesis is a
very early guess usually made by an individual. A theory on the other
hand is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and attacks by
many other scientists/people. I believe there are currently four or
five theories on the origins of life.
"If life is so random, then how would science ever be able to pin down the
cause and effects of life as we know it."
The current theories on the origin of life don't really have anything to
do with randomness. The idea is that if a planet supports water, then
the chances of life originating there are good. I won't go into the
details of chemistry as how this can happen as you can read a ton of info
on it off the net, but I'll point out one of the most famous
experiments of the 20th century (first done in the 1960s I think) where
an early earth environment recreation in a laboratory exposed to
electricty (lightening) produced complex amino acids (organic building
blocks).
For people like yourself who are not able (or willing) to comprehend
scientific theory through the scientific method, perhaps one day we will
visit an early aquatic planet. Even that falls into the realm of
scientific study. Your statement doesn't even make sense. You
obviously have no concept of randomness. Let's say the explanation for
the creation of life is arbitrary. We can still deduce and limit the
possibilities by proven facts we know today. This leaves a finite set
of possibilities which will be narrowed down with new facts, thus
leading to only a handful of possiblities.
Not confusing the origin of life with the theory of evolution through
natural selection, and assuming we don't know how life was originated,
do you have a technical problem with the theory of evolution and how it
serves as an explantion of one species deriving from another?
Also, just for your information, in scientific terms a hypothesis is a
very early guess usually made by an individual. A theory on the other
hand is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and attacks by
many other scientists/people. I believe there are currently four or
five theories on the origins of life.
I have no problem to scientific theory or method. I am willing to learn and read anything thrown in my direction. If that is recipocated by yourself, as far as the Holy Texts or philosophical inquiries has yet to be determined.
I however will say that I could really care less about another aquatic planet, my main focus is on the planet upon which we live on now.
I also have no problem accepting natural selection. However where is this natural selection taking us? how do we know when we get there? Survival of the fittest. Why are we trying to survive? science has yet to show that we are all headed to one specific goal or end. Maybe there are five theories about this. Five dry theories upon which I am willing to learn about however my lesuire time is spent upon reading about what is. Not about what MIGHT be.
I however will say that I could really care less about another aquatic planet, my main focus is on the planet upon which we live on now.
I also have no problem accepting natural selection. However where is this natural selection taking us? how do we know when we get there? Survival of the fittest. Why are we trying to survive? science has yet to show that we are all headed to one specific goal or end. Maybe there are five theories about this. Five dry theories upon which I am willing to learn about however my lesuire time is spent upon reading about what is. Not about what MIGHT be.
