Revolutionary Scientific Finding

[shrewsbury]

religious scholars don't work with the same methods as science, their comes from the same as philosophy, which many say religion gave birth to philosophy.

I am more interested in what science can bring to religion and what religion can bring to science.

I love them both!

[Wickabee]

Technically creationism is a theory. If being in a book makes it something else, then so is everything in every book ever made.

It's the theory that everything was created by a God. Does it have any empirical evidence? No. Can it be proven either way? Theoretically, he could show himself to us and lay the question to rest, so yes, it conceivably can, albeit, only by one action and not an action any or all of us can make.

Of course explaining how creationism does fit the criteria of a theory, though not a scientific theorem, is probably not worth reading because it means you took something wrong (Which definition of theory. I've been told many times by someone here that there is a colloquial theory and a scientific theory (which is colloquially known as a fact. Colloquial isn't deliberately confusing that way).

Creationism is most definitely a theory. It was, at one point, theorized. Until it's proven either way, it remains a theory, and nothing more or less.

[JustAlex]

You need to look up the meaning of theory. Creationism meets the criteria just as successfully as Big Bang does.

I think you need to look up the meaning of a SCIENTIFIC Theory and you'll see that creationism has absolutely NOTHING to even be labeled scientific.

As time goes by science discovers more and more and god becomes smaller and smaller.

[Wickabee]

I think you need to look up the meaning of a SCIENTIFIC Theory and you'll see that creationism has absolutely NOTHING to even be labeled scientific.

As time goes by science discovers more and more and god becomes smaller and smaller.

I think you need to look up what Habs actually said. He said it is a conclusion, not a theory. He said nothing of scientific theory.

Amazing how the guy who reads all the posts can see what he who reads half cannot. Why is that, I wonder...

As time goes by, science remains benign, scientists find out more, and God becomes bigger and bigger.

[Star_Cards]

well,

nothing amazing or really that big, still too many unanswered questions. I do love the fact that it points to this


muliverse

it amazes me that with no way to ever prove this, it is an accepted theory, and expected by many of those who do not accept creationism.

Creationism also has no way to ever be proved, yet lots of people 100% believe it and speak of it as absolute rather than just another theory of our creation. Personally, I like to hear theories of our creation and know they are just theories as we will more than likely never find out. Even if we did find out I have no personal investment in either one.

[JustAlex]

About the article and the Big Bang....

There is already SO MUCH EVIDENCE for the big bang.

We KNOW that space is expanding.....we KNOW that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the radiation left over from the early stage of the development of the universe.

The Big Bang is the best explanation for our universe.


I HIGHLY....HIGHLY recommend EVERYONE to watch "Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey", airing Sundays on Fox.

It is an EXCELLENT educational scientific program which explains in an "easy to understand" manner the cosmos, our origins and does so without making it about "faith vs Science".

Of course I feel bad for Oklahoma citizens who their idiotic cable providers actually CENSORED part of Cosmos simply because they don't like what they have to say....how shameful.

[Wickabee]

Cosmos is actually a great introduction. Very accessible, and very aware of the difference between the relationship between theism and science, and the relationship between religion and science. Very well done show.

Now can someone quote my last post so the ignorant can see how they took something the wrong way. I explained it pretty well. Either they have to qualify theories as "scientific" or we get to use "fact" for the colloquial use of "theory" the way they use "theory" for "scientific theory" for "fact". Kind of like inviting someone to play a game and explaining the rules as you go so you can't lose.

Either we use "theory" and "scientific theory" exclusively, or we swap the colloquial meanings. Fair is fair.

[Wickabee]

Of course I feel bad for Oklahoma citizens who their idiotic cable providers actually CENSORED part of Cosmos simply because they don't like what they have to say....how shameful.

Kind of like using ignoring a person because you don't like what that person has to say. Interesting how deliberate ignorance only wrong for one side, but more than acceptable for the other. What do they call that? A double something. Double..?

[JustAlex]

I am more interested in what science can bring to religion and what religion can bring to science.

Shrew, what can religion bring to science?

Seriously, what? Nothing.

Religion is not in the business of experimenting, they are in the business of believing on faith and no evidence is required.

Science will never allow this type of thinking.....science is about experimenting in order to reach a conclusion.

Religion is about having a conclusion and believing it no matter what.

[Wickabee]

Alex: Religion sucks. Science is the search for God. I've said this for years.