My Apple Challenge II

[VirOptimus]

I said "scientists" --- raw science can take a hike.

I'm afraid you lost me there. Do you mean that those who works with science shouldnt have a religous belif or lack thereof? While I do agree that scientists do not have better say in the divine than anyone else they must still be allowed to express their beliefs surely?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm afraid you lost me there. Do you mean that those who works with science shouldnt have a religous belif or lack thereof? While I do agree that scientists do not have better say in the divine than anyone else they must still be allowed to express their beliefs surely?

Express away - to your heart's content; but don't expect your scientific beliefs to go unchallenged by Bible-believing Christians.

 

[VirOptimus]

Express away - to your heart's content; but don't expect your scientific beliefs to go unchallenged by Bible-believing Christians.

Hmm, scientific beliefs sounds like a contradiction in terms actually. Science is proving how things are, not beliving things, thats what faith is all about.

You will of course get problems if you mix the two, as this forum clearly show. Just as science shouldn (cant) be about how the divine operates; theology shouldnt be about the physical reality (IMO).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Express away - to your heart's content; but don't expect your scientific beliefs to go unchallenged by Bible-believing Christians.

Challenge away -- just be ready to support your challenges, and excuse us if we don't find Hebrew mythology to be very compelling support.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hmm, scientific beliefs sounds like a contradiction in terms actually. Science is proving how things are, not beliving things, thats what faith is all about.

You will of course get problems if you mix the two, as this forum clearly show. Just as science shouldn (cant) be about how the divine operates; theology shouldnt be about the physical reality (IMO).

Theology never was about physical reality -- theology is about spiritual realiy, insofar as such a thing exists.

 

[VirOptimus]

Theology never was about physical reality -- theology is about spiritual realiy, insofar as such a thing exists.

Well, I think it should be so but I'm not prepared to say that this was always the case.

In modern times this is very much so, at least among the scholars.

 

[Loudmouth]

Until scientists can build a machine that can do this ---

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

--- they aren't qualified to speak against what you call the "metaphysical" --- and I call the "divine."

Until theists can evidence this happening they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Skavau]

And as I am fond of saying, and I think this is an excellent point:

Until scientists can build a machine that can do this

2 Kings 6:17And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
--- they aren't qualified to speak against what you call the "metaphysical" --- and I call the "divine."

We know of absolutely nothing that can do that. Do you have evidence that it ever did?

[/FONT]Express away - to your heart's content; but don't expect your scientific beliefs to go unchallenged by Bible-believing Christians.

Oh, don't worry - we expect it. And just for the record, quoting scripture from the Bible to assert how science is about as convincing to me as quoting scripture from the Qu'ran is convincing to you.

Going to address my original post, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is proving how things are...

What are you talking about? Science can't "prove" I breathe air.

 

[AV1611VET]

Going to address my original post, AV?

If you mean your lengthy Post 93 --- no, I don't plan to address it.

 

[GrayCat]

don't expect your scientific beliefs to go unchallenged by Bible-believing Christians.

I would put that in Vice Versa as well....

 

[Nitron]

What are you talking about? Science can't "prove" I breathe air.

Yes it can.

 

[MoonLancer]

Yes it can.

i think av is just debating the word "prove". not weather or not we breath air.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What are you talking about? Science can't "prove" I breathe air.

As usual, you've accidentally stumbled halfway into a true statement.

Science doesn't "prove" much, but it is exceptionally good as disproving things. It's far more useful at proving what cannot be instead of what is. Think of it as a process of elimination.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes.

So while science cannot prove you breathe air, as opposed to, say, absorbing oxygen through osmosis, we can attempt to rule that out as a possibility.

The experiment is quite simple: Stop breathing, and we'll observe what happens next.

Personally, my theory is that you'll turn blue, pass out, and barring any outside intervention, suffer brain damage and eventually die from hypoxia. But hey, maybe "science" is wrong, hmmm AV?

 

[pgp_protector]

i think av is just debating the word "prove". not weather or not we breath air.

that depends on what "is" is

 

[Split Rock]

As usual, you've accidentally stumbled halfway into a true statement.

Science doesn't "prove" much, but it is exceptionally good as disproving things. It's far more useful at proving what cannot be instead of what is. Think of it as a process of elimination.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes.

So while science cannot prove you breathe air, as opposed to, say, absorbing oxygen through osmosis, we can attempt to rule that out as a possibility.

The experiment is quite simple: Stop breathing, and we'll observe what happens next.

Personally, my theory is that you'll turn blue, pass out, and barring any outside intervention, suffer brain damage and eventually die from hypoxia. But hey, maybe "science" is wrong, hmmm AV?

Actually, he would turn blue, pass out and then resume breathing again while unconscious. You cannot kill yourself by holding your breathe.

 

[Tammisto]

Actually, he would turn blue, pass out and then resume breathing again while unconscious. You cannot kill yourself by holding your breathe.

A simple plastic bag and duct tape can eliminate that variable. Not that im recomending anyone do that, just providing a possibility.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually, he would turn blue, pass out and then resume breathing again while unconscious. You cannot kill yourself by holding your breathe.

A simple plastic bag and duct tape can eliminate that variable. Not that im recomending anyone do that, just providing a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ibility.

LOL! Yes, that would work. thanks!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, he would turn blue, pass out and then resume breathing again while unconscious. You cannot kill yourself by holding your breathe.

True enough, so perhaps "barring any outside intervention" wasn't the best choice of phrase, since breathing is an autonomic act.

As pointed out, however, a plastic bag and some duct tape would negate that, although there would still be the possibility that AV does absorb oxygen through osmosis -- but only through his face. We'd get the same results if that was the case.

Hmmm -- how would we test that hypothesis?

 

[Loudmouth]

As pointed out, however, a plastic bag and some duct tape would negate that, although there would still be the possibility that AV does absorb oxygen through osmosis -- but only through his face. We'd get the same results if that was the case.

Hmmm -- how would we test that hypothesis?

Sprinkle some salt on his face. It works well on frogs and salamanders.