Stephen Elliott
Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote |
thordaddy
Posts: 47
Joined: Jan. 2006
Posted: Mar. 20 2006,15:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Elliot,
I can not help it if your decide not to read or your comprehension is poor.
First, I didn't say science was holding back the truth, but instead asked stevestory if that was what HE was saying about science in regards to plate tetonics?
Secondly, at the fundamental level (structure and function), science and religion are of the same lineage. If you dispute this assertion then say so and lay down your argument. Both endeavors are unique to human intelligence, both seek greater truth and both interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning. The ONLY appreciable difference is the idea that science makes predictions and does experiments. Call it descent with modification. You do believe in evolution, no? |
Maybe my reading comprehension is poor. But it was me you was replying to about plate tectonics.
| Quote |
thordaddy
Stephen Elliot opines,
...
Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented.
So, it is clear that science has in times past made it difficult for truths to come forward? Is this the lesson you wish to portend? |
Science is supposed to make it difficult for ideas to be accepted. It does this by requiring measurable evidence. Experiments/predictions etc.
Portend? I am not trying to portend a message. I am trying to give it.
You may think science and religion are fundamentaly identical. I certainly think you used the wrong word with "identical". But feel free to blame my comprehension.
Had tou said. "Science and Religion have a similar goal in-that they both try to explain the world we live in". I would have agreed. But what you said was "Science and Religion are fundamentally identical" and unqualified I consider that to be nonsense.
Finally. Yes, I believe evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment for the diversity of life.
|
Par contre, vous avez maîtrisé parfaitement l'anglais, avec aucune accent en vos écritures (peut-être je me trompe ici, qu'est-ce c'est, le mot pour "comment".) 
