The real world of science

[Michali]

Interesting concept, trying the supernatural only when all logical attempts have failed. Next time I have a lab report due that I'm not done with I'll try some voodoo and see if I can stop time.

Couldn't hurt. (It would in my belief system.)

Try praying. If it didn't work, and let us say, your grandmother died anyway. Don't let it keep you from trying again. Like I said, it couldn't hurt. Unless voodoo requires your own sacrificial human blood. I suggest the One True God (the so-called Christian God.) I have seen many many problems get worked out perfectly. Some were completely miraculous. And simple things too like (to name one off the bat): I'm late for work, I pray for my boss' compassion, and at the same time all my co-workers and boss show up 20 minutes late right along with me. I mean all of them. (Except for Jason, and that was the first time he was on time for furniture movement.)

 

[futantbirth]

"God never changes"

science and god aren't candidates for direct comparison. one is an idea surrounding progressing perception, and the other is a set of parameters binding change.

and if you think that the perception of god never changes... why then for the division among religions? would there not be just one truth to strive for?

 

[JohnR7]

Well, without a little scientific know-how, there wouldn't be any rubber, now would there? And the road would still be dirt.

Actually neither Harvey S. Firestone, Henry Ford or Thomas Edison were scientists by any stretch of the imagination. They were inventors, investors, businessmen, but there were not scientists. The greatest of them, Edison was home taught and did not even have a formal education.

Science has improved upon the tire. We of course have the best polymer science college in the world right here in the rubber capital of the world. But science did not invent the tire.

 

[Godzman]

"God never changes"

science and god aren't candidates for direct comparison. one is an idea surrounding progressing perception, and the other is a set of parameters binding change.

and if you think that the perception of god never changes... why then for the division among religions? would there not be just one truth to strive for?

because of man, division is created, because of sin people are corrupted, man is naturally evil.

But onto your God science thing, God created science, science didn't create God

 

[JohnR7]

Not entirely suprising, science is right. And you take this as a failure to deliver on a claim?

I have GOT to be missing something...

Here is a typical claim made on behalf of science:

Modern science holds out a number of promises, as well as a number of problems. In the foreseeable future researchers may solve the riddle of life and create life itself in a test tube. Most diseases may be brought under control. Science is also working toward control over the environment, e.g., dispersing hurricanes before they can endanger life or property. New sources of energy are being developed, and these together with the capacity to manipulate alien environments may make life possible on the moon or other planets.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0860980.html

Now your going to try to tell me that there are not people out there making wild claims about all that science can do and will do for us?

 

[futantbirth]

"But onto your God science thing, God created science, science didn't create God"

ok... so

if there is a god, then it no doubt created science. so then, wouldnt things like evolution be his greatest creation?

and... science never has claimed to have created god, nor does it even acknowledge it.

 

[Godzman]

"But onto your God science thing, God created science, science didn't create God"

ok... so

if there is a god, then it no doubt created science. so then, wouldnt things like evolution be his greatest creation?

and... science never has claimed to have created god, nor does it even acknowledge it.

I am an old earth creationist, am I an theistic evolutionist? i don't know

 

[Michali]

"God never changes"

science and god aren't candidates for direct comparison. one is an idea surrounding progressing perception, and the other is a set of parameters binding change.

and if you think that the perception of god never changes... why then for the division among religions? would there not be just one truth to strive for?

What you see in a religion is a human carved object that is imperfect. In Daniel's dream, he drempt of an Idol with all these metals and stones carved to form a huge figure of a man. The feet were made of iron and clay. A giant rock strikes the feet and the entire idol crashes to the floor. The angel reveals that iron does not mix with clay (symbolic of a divided kingdom) and the uncarved rock was God's kingdom. Not forged by human hands, but made by God himself. In other words, the religions are controlled and regulated by mankind (and so are confused and divided), but there are a people without any leader but God himself. They are scattered and few, but they're out there.

 

[JohnR7]

Are you serious John? How can you sit there, typing on you computer, and be so oblivious to science's benefits?

Do you mean for the purpose of this conversation? Just what is the difference between this board and the ones we had 15 years ago? Computers were invented by hobby clubs. Before Bill Gates, Microsoft and IBM, we had message boards very much like this one. Even with 300 bit modems.

 

[futantbirth]

yes but it the progress... the logic... are all based in the scientific method.

thats why adam didnt have a Playstation 2.

and if he did... he wouldnt have listened to eve's bullsh*t

 

[JohnR7]

yes but it the progress... the logic... are all based in the scientific method.

Most electronics today is based on Edison's work, and he did not have much use for logic and scientific method.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually neither Harvey S. Firestone, Henry Ford or Thomas Edison were scientists by any stretch of the imagination. They were inventors, investors, businessmen, but there were not scientists. The greatest of them, Edison was home taught and did not even have a formal education.

Science has improved upon the tire. We of course have the best polymer science college in the world right here in the rubber capital of the world. But science did not invent the tire.

So you think invention has nothing to do with science?

 

[futantbirth]

Edison WAS a scientist.

if you dont see any logic in how a computer works... I really hope that you are kidding.

 

[Nathan Poe]

John, you obviously have no idea what either "logic" or "scientific method" is, or else you would never made such a stunningly ignorant post:

Most electronics today is based on Edison's work, and he did not have much use for logic and scientific method.

A good deal of Edison's success came through trial and error, as most scientific achievements are. Edison literally went through over 10,000 different designs for the light bulb, none of which worked.
When asked if he was getting discouraged, he smiled and said, "not al all. I've discovered 10,000 ways not to do it. If I keep ruling them out, I'll find the one that works."

Do you suppose he just cobbled things together at random, or did he actually learn from his mistakes?

 

[JohnR7]

So you think invention has nothing to do with science?

Not in the early stages. It is to simple at first. Science is to busy trying to figure out complicated things and they tend not to be good in dealing with the more basic and simple concepts.

 

[futantbirth]

you have absolutely no idea what science is or how it works do you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not in the early stages. It is to simple at first. Science is to busy trying to figure out complicated things and they tend not to be good in dealing with the more basic and simple concepts.

John, your complete lack of knowledge of science is already something of an institution here at CF. You need not add to it.

 

[Michali]

Maybe John means to be talking about the way we treat current science, and not the actuall definition of science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Maybe John means to be talking about the way we treat current science, and not the actuall definition of science.

Given John's posting history, I'd say he sees no difference between the two.

 

[LorentzHA]

Not in the early stages. It is to simple at first. Science is to busy trying to figure out complicated things and they tend not to be good in dealing with the more basic and simple concepts.

Yes.... Science expalins things that were previous explained by such phrases as , "witchcraft", "The Devil", "Demons", etc. I have swiped the second quote from Nathan's sig. line. I think this speaks to this, rather well!

"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." --Hippocrates