Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Stan Johansen Miniatures' Painting Service

A happy customer writes to tell us about a painting service...


Featured Workbench Article

15mm Base Contouring Round-Up: Four Materials

Can any of these products cure the dreaded "wedding cake" effect?


47,741 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Hexxenhammer22 Jun 2009 12:39 p.m. PST

Doug, I think I'm done with you until you've taken some biology and anthro courses. You are sorely ignorant of basic knowledge of basic evolution and human evolution. I can't teach you the basics over a forum. I'll cop out and direct you to talkorigins.org

Daffy Doug22 Jun 2009 2:53 p.m. PST

Back to causality. The same problem with "who created god" is "who created causality(god). The suggestion is that the big bang is a periodic event that involves nothing more than gravity. thus gravity is god!

Could be, or at least "god" manifesting through gravity.

You can't keep saying "turtles all the way down", i.e. "who created god". Existence in the first place has no cause. It can't, or else something else is the Cause.

It does no good to question why Existence doesn't or can't end. If Existence was at all dependent on space-time to define it, then it would be a moment-by-moment thing, capable of Existence NOW, but maybe not later. If Existence simply IS, then there is no such thing as moment, or before or after….

Daffy Doug22 Jun 2009 3:03 p.m. PST

Hex, I wasn't expecting anyone to "teach" me anything. If my responses and points are capable of demolition then you shouldn't, with your "basic knowledge," have too much trouble pointing out error.

In fact, I haven't said anything to call evolution into question: even in my ignorance, I can see that there is plenty of evidence to SHOW biological evolution going on probably the entire time that life has been extant on earth. My points in my last post responding to yours, are metaphysically based, because I see the metaphysical implications as trumping the narrowly focused biological studies of time on this world only. Even the BB can't provide an answer to the question of Existence of the universe in the first place. No amount of erudite knowledge in biology and the fact of evolution on THIS world begins to approach an answer as to why Existence is the state of affairs and not Void….

britishlinescarlet223 Jun 2009 1:55 p.m. PST

Existence is because…there does not need to be any other reason.

Pete

Ghecko25 Jun 2009 10:54 p.m. PST

Best wishes to you also Ralph.

You never did work out who I was did you?

TJ

Last Hussar28 Jun 2009 6:47 a.m. PST

Fred Phelps?

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP29 Jul 2009 4:50 p.m. PST

Take the Piltdown Man hoax. They so badly wanted to find an ape-man fossil to fit their beliefs that when a suitable "fossil" came along, they didn't even question it; it didn't make sense finding it where they did but hell it's an "ape-man"; we'll take it! They didn't even bother to scientifically test it; human skull; ape jaw; that's all they needed; it's all they wanted.

But it's a hoax, and was exposed as such, that's science in action, find evidence, assess evidence, keep assesing it and when it clearly stinks hold your hands up and say "error". That's how progress is made. If scientists beleived everything they read in a book then a catalogue of half truths, mistakes, and plain made-up stories would be the basis of scientific understanding. And it isn't.

Daffy Doug29 Jul 2009 5:29 p.m. PST

It's ALIVE, like "what is oozing out of our ground!"…

kyoteblue29 Jul 2009 11:14 p.m. PST

Shrug…..

138SquadronRAF14 Aug 2009 12:09 p.m. PST

A friend of mine went to the Creation Museum n KY last week. Go to see some of his pictures.

It seems the world wide flood took place per the museum in 2348 BC.

Looks like there are issues with early history of various civilizations in the world if human history has to be fitted into a far shorter span.

Interestingly the Museum also puts forward the racist Hamite theory of African origins, used to justify slavery through to the Civil War and subsequently to maintain Jim Crow laws.

The alternative explanation is that the museum is just a load of santorum.

Daffy Doug14 Aug 2009 7:24 p.m. PST

Doesn't the museum have a diorama showing homosapiens and dinosaurs together? I heard that somewhere….

138SquadronRAF15 Aug 2009 7:12 a.m. PST

Yes, according to the Creation "Museum" humans and dinosaurs co-existed – before "The Fall" the meat eating dinosaurs were vegetarians – but then the Talking Snake got us to eat the Apple and it all went pear-shaped….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2009 10:42 a.m. PST

If It weren't for the fact that these people are actualy doing harm, it would be funny

Daffy Doug15 Aug 2009 9:29 p.m. PST

It's a free (speech) country, thank "God" (mine as well as theirs). I see no harm being done: they're just making total idiots of themselves. The truth will be backed by facts. And assertions based on a Hebrew collection of agenda-based writings (now thousands of years old) will never stand the comparison. You must be patient: creationists will be hoist upon their own petards. Let them talk, the more the better….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP16 Aug 2009 4:13 a.m. PST

They are anti science and many of them have power over money that might or might not go to science.
They want to bring bronze age stories into the science class room.

And they spend most of their time spreading lies that people bevlive

Like this guy is a menence to every body that listen and belives what he says

138SquadronRAF16 Aug 2009 9:03 a.m. PST

These people are a menace to science and society.

There is already a massive home school movement where this is taught at fact.

"Tech the flaws of evolution" is their mantra in attempt to get superstition into public (state) schools in the US.

The US only just got rid of a president who want Intelligent Design talk in science classes along side evolution.

Now I was exposed during my K-12 education to Christian education, using the King James Bible, (as opposed to some modern translation like "The Bible in 'Merkin English just like Jesus spoke") it gave me an appreciation of literature and the allusion of other writers. It also turn me into Atheist.

RockyRusso16 Aug 2009 9:46 a.m. PST

Hi

Absolutely correct, a menace. Sadly, and fix you might come up with is worse.

Remember when the government insisted that Galileo recant?

As for "people believe". I "believe" that 90% of the population living their lives around the world can live happily, and change nothing around them without being taught about evolution!

Rocky

RockyRusso16 Aug 2009 9:47 a.m. PST

Hi

As for "RAF" being turned into an atheist due to Intel design beliefs is clearly "anti-logic".

It is like saying that because some scientists believe in euthanasia, I must become a believer!

Rocky

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP16 Aug 2009 12:05 p.m. PST

"Remember when the government insisted that Galileo recant?"

But wasn't the goverment controled by the church?

It would be like the catholic church threateing to burn Kent Hoven on the stake, if he didn't acnoladge evolution,

Which is an absurd notion.

The worst thing that will happen is that private sector will stop suporitng the "ministries" these people run.
Which mean they would have to find their own places to "preach" their Bleeped text.

crhkrebs16 Aug 2009 1:41 p.m. PST

As for "RAF" being turned into an atheist due to Intel design beliefs is clearly "anti-logic".

It is? Being exposed to bad ideas when young would naturally make them anathema to you later. Worked for me too.

Ralph

crhkrebs16 Aug 2009 2:43 p.m. PST

Remember when the government insisted that Galileo recant?

What government?

A committee of eleven consultants were dispatched from the Vatican's Holy Office to investigate Galileo early in his career. They found that he followed the heretical Copernican hypothesis. As a result, he was told to stop preaching "Copernicism" by his friend, Cardinal Bellarmine. He was also officially sanctioned by the 1616 Decree of the Congregation of the Index (effectively the censors of the Vatican).

Eventually, he wrote "Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea" due to his new interest on the forces that drive the tides. Of course, this only makes sense in a Copernican model of the solar system and Galileo mentioned this. Dialogue caught the attention of the Vatican. Pope Urban VIII not only thought this book subverted the 1616 Decree, but that a character in the book, was a caricature of himself.

A commission of inquiry convened in 1632. They found 8 heresies in their report and Galileo was sent to face the Cardinal Inquisitors in 1633. The first inquisition dealt with his Dialogue breaking the law of the 1616 Decree. The second commission dealt with the Dialogue promoting Copernicism. In the last commission of inquiry, Galileo admitted that he contravened the 1616 Decree by his Dialogue out of "vainglorious ambition and of pure ignorance and inadvertence" (April 30, 1633 proceedings of the Holy Office). In effect he caved in.

On June 16th the final disposition of the Holy Office determined that his book was to be prohibited, and not withdrawn for further correction. Galileo is recorded as having stated, "I do not hold the opinion of Copernicus, and I have not held it after being ordered by the injunction to abandon it. For the rest, I am here in your hands to do with me as you please".

On June 22nd Galileo was sentenced. His "retraction" that he was forced to read, was actually a "statement of abjuration" prepared for him by the Holy Office. In return for stating that he was wrong, that Copernicism was wrong, and finally that he was a heretic and that in the future he would never assert, verbally or in writing, "whatsoever was contrary to the Holy Church…", he would be given leniency. We now can surmise, he perjured himself so he could avoid torture and imprisonment.

Luckily, Galileo still had friends in high places, such as the aforementioned Cardinal Bellarmine and Archbishop Piccolomini of Siena. Piccolomini provided him with the apartment that Galileo would be imprisoned in for the rest of his life.

No governments were involved, in fact no governments within the Catholic world could have intervened. This was a church matter.

Ralph

Daffy Doug16 Aug 2009 3:33 p.m. PST

And the church had the power to torture, imprison for life and kill heretics: that IS the law, not some lay gov't.

What Rocky said remains true: to regulate against Creationists crosses the line back towards something akin to the RCC "law" being paramount, i.e. intellectual terrorism….

crhkrebs17 Aug 2009 8:59 a.m. PST

What Rocky said remains true: to regulate against Creationists crosses the line back towards something akin to the RCC "law" being paramount, i.e. intellectual terrorism….

I'm sorry, I don't get this at all. What does "to regulate against Creationists" mean? What exactly is the "intellectual terrorism"?

Ralph

RockyRusso17 Aug 2009 11:16 a.m. PST

Hi

Ralph, yup, correct, in detail to pettyfog the issue.

We dismiss these people and we confront them when they make their statements, we do not have the state in any form control them. Is that clear enough?

The hindu have a saying "A god is not responsible for the sorts of people who claim belief in him".

A few nutty atheists doesn't lead one to be Lutheran, that would be illogical. A few nutty Lutherans therefore cannot make one an atheist.

I am blanking on the biologist we discussed earlier in this thread who grew up a hard believer and then, discovering that Genesis is bad biology, became an active athiest who insists, like a true believer, in trying to get you to convert! If you squak like you are religious, and walk like you are religious, and act religious but claim to be an atheist like this, you are religious!

rocky

Daffy Doug17 Aug 2009 6:40 p.m. PST

I'm sorry, I don't get this at all. What does "to regulate against Creationists" mean? What exactly is the "intellectual terrorism"?

Just the growing sentiment against religion in some "circles". Those in them say that religion is bad and dangerous; it's been said on this thread. If they had their way, religion would be highly regulated, into non functionality, even prison for some "crimes" of belief. That is the intellectual terrorism: it's the shoe on the other foot: because in the receding past, Christians regulated using intellectual (in this case a misnomer!) terrorism of the church against heresy (so-called, and punished)….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 Aug 2009 1:43 a.m. PST

Well there is a BIG diffrence between religion and creationism.

You can "regulate" against creatioism with out regulating against religion

Daffy Doug18 Aug 2009 9:46 a.m. PST

I don't see how: if creationism IS a religion, or at least perspective of religion, then you can't regulate against it without crossing that line where The State has assumed dictatorial powers and is using them to prejudice against a segment of society. Now, you don't have to allow Creationism to have equal time in the classroom of public school: but if the locals want it, you shouldn't be empowered to tell them they can't have what the majority want in their schools (just as long as the locals don't try to force-feed their dogma to the minority, i.e. encroach on their civil rights); and if a university wants to host a class on Creationism, so be it and more power to them….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 Aug 2009 11:00 a.m. PST

Education isn't a democracy, if you let creationism inn into the schools you might as well show ghost busters as a learing tool in the science classrom or teach astrology instead of astronomi.

Luckely the separation of church and state forbids it.
So it's not realy possible to have it.

But education is NOT based on democracy.
If you knew the body of work a theory have to show before it can be in a science text book, you wouldn't say
"but if the locals want it, you shouldn't be empowered to tell them they can't have what the majority want in their schools"

Science is not up for public opinion and so science classrooms arn't either

RockyRusso18 Aug 2009 11:15 a.m. PST

Hi

You missed the oppression gunfreek. Nope, you don't teach creationism. (though I argue relying on the school system to teach meaningful science is foolish).

How do you stop the religious from ADVOCATING such?

Rocky

crhkrebs18 Aug 2009 1:18 p.m. PST

I still can't understand what you guys are talking about. What regulation or oppression is being done to Creationists exactly?

For starters NO ONE has advocated not allowing Creationism, Creation Science or Intelligent Design to be taught in school. What is objected to is the teaching of ID in Science, as Science. As Gunfreak says, education is not democratic.

Keeping ID out of Science because it is NOT scientific is not oppressing anyone's religious rights. Neither is keeping physics lectures out of Music class and example of oppressing physicists.

Just the growing sentiment against religion in some "circles". Those in them say that religion is bad and dangerous; it's been said on this thread. If they had their way, religion would be highly regulated, into non functionality, even prison for some "crimes" of belief.

Well I think religion is bad and dangerous, but I'd never suggest controlling or punishing the religious. Who am I to suggest that? In fact, I'd be interested on who you have in mind when you bring something like that. Any names?

Ralph

Daffy Doug18 Aug 2009 4:26 p.m. PST

I still can't understand what you guys are talking about. What regulation or oppression is being done to Creationists exactly?

So far, it's only a mindset of opposition to ID and the ilk: the way people talk, religion ought to suppressed. If they had their way it would be. That's the seedlings of prejudice threatening to bud and grow into outright oppression, sort of a reverse inquisition mentality from the "godless".

In fact, I'd be interested on who you have in mind when you bring something like that. Any names?

Gunfreak? He seems quite bent on the destruction of religion :)

No, not off the top of my head, I can't come up with any names we would both know. Checking back over this thread shows some angst directed toward religion: Dawkins comes across as quite angsty about the undue influence that the religious have in society….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP19 Aug 2009 6:37 a.m. PST

There's a diffrence between wanting Religion gone and actualy wanting people to give up thier faith by force.

Would I be happy if I woke up tomorrow and religion was gone, sure, would I incringde peoples rights or harm them to get rid of religion, never.

But I do feel I have the right to point out faults in their religious logic and fight perversion of sicence like creationism is.

crhkrebs19 Aug 2009 6:42 a.m. PST

So far, it's only a mindset of opposition to ID and the ilk: the way people talk, religion ought to suppressed.

Ahh, so we are now guilty of "thought crime". Exactly the response I imagined. BTW, I'm with Dawkins in his angst. And well said, Gunfreak.

Ralph

Daffy Doug19 Aug 2009 9:36 a.m. PST

Not thought crime: speaking the animosity out loud. Think all you like. But words spoken cannot be recalled. And most people are not careful by half the way they talk about others whom they disagree with. In the bad old days of religious persecution it was the heretics (i.e. the real thinkers) who got harrassed and even killed. I don't see a significant difference in that attitude and the vituperative response of some non believers toward the counter attack of the IDers, et al. the religionists. Neither side is to be trusted….

crhkrebs19 Aug 2009 4:22 p.m. PST

Not thought crime: speaking the animosity out loud.

Aaahh………..so Oppression and regulation of the Creationists (Aug 16th) has petered out to speaking out against religion (Aug.19). Mmmm….. hardly the same is it?

Calling a stupid idea "a stupid idea" is hardly oppression. Neither side is to be trusted? One side champions science, the other side champions pseudoscience. I know which one I trust.

Ralph

imrael20 Aug 2009 6:02 a.m. PST

I confess – I have a mindset of opposition to ID. If my sons school wanted to teach it as science I would strongly oppose them via public and private speech and writing. I have signed online petitions and written to my MP on similar issues. If thats oppression I'm proud to be an oppressor.

I also oppose spending public money on Homeopathy and most other alternative therapies, and think society would be a lot better place if more policy decisions were evidence-based. So sue me.

Daffy Doug20 Aug 2009 9:40 a.m. PST

Calling religion bad, and responsible for the evils in the world, and in need of suppression/eradication, is all I am addressing: if the shoe doesn't fit, then I am not talking about YOU, am I?…

138SquadronRAF20 Aug 2009 12:43 p.m. PST

We run the risk of getting the Blue Fez gentleman.

This tread does show that Science and Religions are two different and competing magisterium. One is backed by faith and the other by observable phenomena.

If we care about science we should demand proof and that fitted into an underlying hypothesis or theory.

Until we have a forum where we can discuss religion I suggest we leave the subject. That said a look at the last 2,500 years of history of the near east and western Europe and then the world will show what effect the Abrahamic relgions have had and continue to have on the world. It is interesting though that many scientific endevours over that past 400 years have been opposed by those religions.

Daffy Doug20 Aug 2009 3:33 p.m. PST

Oh CRAP! This ISN'T TBF. I keep forgetting….

crhkrebs20 Aug 2009 4:49 p.m. PST

Oh CRAP! This ISN'T TBF. I keep forgetting….

Yes, and thank God for that! Way more sensible discourse here.

This tread does show that Science and Religions are two different and competing magisterium. One is backed by faith and the other by observable phenomena.

Yes, and never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately, they do. Organized religion and it's bastard offspring, the Creationist/ID movement, is quite intent on turning Science and science education on it's ear. Check out the "Wedge" strategy formulated by Phillip Johnson of the Discovery Institute. The Wiki entry is here:

link

for a better description consider Dr. Kenneth Millers book "Only a Theory".

onlyatheorythebook.com

You will see that IDiots have no interest in playing fair by the scientific rules and have no interest in keeping religion and science "non-overlapping Magisteria" according to Dr. Goulds original definition.

The attack on science is a topic for the Science board and should not be relegated only to the overly politicized Blue Fez. Even if the attacks do originate from organized religion.

Ralph

138SquadronRAF21 Aug 2009 7:02 a.m. PST

Ralph,

I agree with you.

Despite attempts by the Discovery Institute to claim that the Wedge Strategy did not mean what it patently means.

IDiots are dishonest, they attempt to link evolution to the origins of life. If you find a missing link in the fossil record they claim that rather than filling the gap there are now 2 gaps. They then bringing the origins of the universe that has nothing to do with evolution.

A review of the Creation "Museum" shows that they start with a preconceived notion and then use that as a excus to reject all the science.

I'm still not sure that this dialogue will change anyones mind.

Next week we have the 400th anniversary of Galileo

link

The IDiots have not made as many attacks on Astronomy, but they have claimed that the speed of light is not reliable.

crhkrebs21 Aug 2009 7:49 a.m. PST

Yes, and the Catholic church, to its credit, began its "mea culpas" within only 100 years from their mistaken persecution of Galileo's ideas. I like the link which quotes John Paul II's line that, "…the Bible does NOT contain specific scientific truths but speaks metaphorically about such events…" (1979, Pontifical Academy of Sciences)

Maybe I'll be alive to see Darwin vindicated in front of an apologetic Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and their ilk.

Ralph

RockyRusso21 Aug 2009 10:39 a.m. PST

Hi

You realize that much of science started with the religous, don't you.

Evolution? Genetics? Do you know what Mendel's day job was?

I ain't a bit religious guys, but this "never meet" is a typical overstatement based on an antipathy for religion, not on reality.

And on the other side, while my first training is anthropology and archeology, and married to a geneticist(and writing her papers), I gots to say that the vast majority of people I talk to have zero understanding of science and how it works.

Thus, to me it is a wash. Yup, the religious believe and so do the bulk of the people who attack them! Not really much difference to accept, as I do, on faith that Hawkings knows what he talks about in High energy physics. I cannot follow the work and it seems almost mystical to me.

I have personally touched the bones and one the work, and that is personal knowledge. But "string theory"? Not for me.

Most gamers accept as a matter of faith when SOME of us tell them how dice work!

Rocky

138SquadronRAF21 Aug 2009 11:03 a.m. PST

Yep, Mendal was a monk – I will give him credit.

The point is that on a string of scientific issues many Christians are on the wrong side of the issues.

The problem is that science is tied up with the Kulturkampf that is splitting America apart. I'm luck I live in a reasonably progressive state – but even here we get the crazies.

I was trained as a economist – a disproportionate number of my friends at university were scientists. As a result I rely on the work that is recommended to me by scientists because they follow a set of rules that I can appreciate.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP21 Aug 2009 1:13 p.m. PST

To show that even great men a clouded by Religion

While he did ALOT of great descoveries, his faith limited him, had he not belived in a god, he might have descoverd even more, 100 years later Laplace continued his work and made more complete discoveries about the same subject as Newton.
When Napoleon(hey it's even wargaming related) Ask Laplace why he didn't mention god in his book(something Newton did)
Laplace answerd: "I had no need of that hypothesis"

Because he wasn't limited by religion he was never satisifed to say "god did it"
Something Newton aperantly was(on some things)

So yes you can have great scientist that are religion(infact most in the last 400 years have been) but you have to wonder if they might have become even more great if not the "god did it" was in their head.

If you go by the asuption that EVERYTHING can be known and discoverd you might go the extra mile to find the answers.

Daffy Doug22 Aug 2009 10:25 a.m. PST

If Existence in the first place can be "known and discovered", have at it, I'm all agog for answers to that one….

RockyRusso22 Aug 2009 10:29 a.m. PST

Hi

I am guessing, gunfreek, because of my wife, I know a lot more current scientists than you. Most of them are religious.

Calling religion a limit is, again, an unprovable hypothesis bssed on faith. For much of scandanavian history, the only literate folks who MIGHT have a bit of science in their history were the religious.

That some religious see a conflict between science and religion is, I believe, balenced by you! You at the other side see a conflict as well.

I don't, most don't.

There is a difference between a few nuts and "all".

Rocky

Last Hussar22 Aug 2009 12:46 p.m. PST

You visit a few regimantal museums for a few days away, and the thread explodes back into life!

Somewhat perplexed at not regulating bad teaching if it is religeon based. That isn't the State interfering with religeon, that is the state stopping idiocy, the fact that it is based in religeon is neither here nor there. Two points strike me.

1) Many Columbines don't want Creation taught as science it breaks church/state seperation, so the State is already assuming powers over a religeon.

2) If Not assuming powers over religeon meant teaching racist interpretation are we supposed to say "Go ahead, we don't want to interfere with Religeon"?

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP22 Aug 2009 12:59 p.m. PST

I didn't say religion limits everybody I gave a spesific exampel which was Newton, he might very well have descoverd more if he wasn't satesifed with "god did it"

And in the end religion and science are in conflic.
Mabye not for most religisous scientist but for some.

You can not reconcide Science and the virgin birth, you can not say you truly follow only the scientific method and require evidence when large aparts of your faith is simply not possible in the natural world.

Kenneth R. Miller is a evolutionary biologist and a feirce adveary againt ID, hi also happens to be a Catholic.
So he HAS to belive in the holy motherm, virgin brith, and other miricals that are IMPOSSIBLE in the natural world.

Which mean he can only be a sciantist and a Catholic as long as his belives aren't in conflict, for him evolution and god is not in conflict, but at one point he might be faced with the option of abandonig his faith or his carer if he some how had to choose bewteen the holynes of Jesus and the natural testeble world.

And thats why Relgion compromises science, because there MIGHT be a point in the religious scientist life where he has to choose bewteen natural world and religion one of two things will happen, Science looses a helper in the advance of knowlage or the church has to find somenoe els to ask for money.

This might not happend or it might, but as long as the chance is there, science is compromised.

Just think if a religious scientist discovers something GREAT I mean earth shakingly world forver change kind of thing.
BUT this discovery goes against his or hers most sharished belives, so he or she buries it, mabye not to be rediscoverd for 100 or more years.
This is far fetched but as long as the possibility is there it's a danger

Daffy Doug22 Aug 2009 5:59 p.m. PST

Gunfreak, you're borrowing trouble. In seeking truth, any honest person will accept it from any source whatsoever. You are perhaps talking about a tiny number of people: because it seems to me that a true scientist cannot be at the same time a religious fanatic: s/he cannot pursue real science and infallibility of scripture at the same time. So anyone claiming to be a scientist who claims infallibility is a liar. The reality is that any true scientist knows that religion is all about the metaphysical, the very "realm" where empirical science cannot go. There are plenty of things that we take as real that are not testable "facts" for science, and that's where religion steps in….

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34