26 Jun 06
Originally posted by kirksey957No, it's unlike saying anything of the sort. It is saying that perhaps the dogma which accompanies some views of current science-knowledge is misplaced.
Well, that is kind of like saying "We have drugs to cure certain diseases now that were thought to be incurable so there's proof that science can't be trusted."
Ironic how those who will live only by what they can see, measure, etc. (you know who you are, no need for me to 'name names'😉 are eerily silent when new discoveries are uncovered. Perhaps they understand the implications and limitations of their ill-placed 'faith.'
More ironic, those who attempt to twist the intent of this thread. Any casual observer of these threads knows I am not anti-knowledge/science, yet some attempt to depict me as a flat-earther--- simply for holding their faith up to the light.
The fact remains, science is limited to what can be measured, and cannot reveal anything beyond the basic characteristics of God. To point out the obvious shortcomings of science is somehow gauche.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAmazing. Religious folk insist over and over and over again that others have "faith" in science, and then you imply that therefore we must think science is "infallible". Nobody's ever said that the current scientific models are perfect; simply that they are the best models available. Now a slightly better one has come into being in which Pluto has more moons. No one is going to say that this is the perfect model of reality either - but it is the best one in light of what we know.
No, it's unlike saying anything of the sort. It is saying that perhaps the dogma which accompanies some views of current science-knowledge is misplaced.
Ironic how those who will live only by what they can see, measure, etc. (you know who you are, no need for me to 'name names'😉 are eerily silent when new discoveries are uncovered. Perhaps the ...[text shortened]... haracteristics of God. To point out the obvious shortcomings of science is somehow gauche.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, not all 'others,' just some 'others.' You know, like the others that I referred to in my posts, the others that place all of their faith in the limited understanding of the physical world that is scienceat its current best. Those others.
Amazing. Religious folk insist over and over and over again that others have "faith" in science, and then you imply that therefore we must think science is "infallible". Nobody's ever said that the current scientific models are perfect; simply that they are the best models available. Now a slightly better one has come into being in which Pluto has mor ...[text shortened]... s is the perfect model of reality either - but it is the best one in light of what we know.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWord of advice. Stop posting. You're not making yourself look any smarter here.
No, not all 'others,' just some 'others.' You know, like the others that I referred to in my posts, the others that place all of their faith in the limited understanding of the physical world that is scienceat its current best. Those others.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWho places all of their faith in the current scientific models? What does it mean to "place all your faith" in something anyway? That's a religious term as far as I can tell, and not one I ever use.
No, not all 'others,' just some 'others.' You know, like the others that I referred to in my posts, the others that place all of their faith in the limited understanding of the physical world that is scienceat its current best. Those others.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI've heard multiple people say exactly what I said except without the eye-rolling. They may be stupid people but they are people.
I think you're confusing aeroplanes with bumble bees. Although we now thing that flies actually create a mini vaccuum above their wings that literally "sucks" them upwards.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think everything science knows now is finally true. I think all research should be ended now and we should just have faith in science as it stands.
Who places all of their faith in the current scientific models? What does it mean to "place all your faith" in something anyway? That's a religious term as far as I can tell, and not one I ever use.
P-
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by ChurlantI think Freaky is trying to dis people who have complete trust in scientific models as they exist now without taking into account that new information might change things.
I suppose I am still confused over the purpose of this thread. Aside from a few dozen generalizations and falsifications about how "others" on the board respond to such things.
-JC
Unfortunately for him, I don't think such people exist.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou picked a really bad example to try to show that science is flawed. As far as I am aware science has never claimed to know exaclty how many moons every planet has. Infact if we were so confident that we knew so much about Pluto then why was someone looking at it when they found more moons?
No, it's unlike saying anything of the sort. It is saying that perhaps the dogma which accompanies some views of current science-knowledge is misplaced.
The fact remains, science is limited to what can be measured, and cannot reveal anything beyond the basic characteristics of God. To point out the obvious shortcomings of science is somehow gauche.
What are these basic characteristics of God that have been revealed by science? And when did science ever claim to be a method of revealing advanced characteristics of God?
I can similarly claim that the Bible totally fails to reveal even the basic characteristics of Budha.