If every one followed the bible.. wouldn't the world be a better place?
- Thread starter Mi$ta-Murda187
- Start date
there is no such thing as a religious scientist - whoever claims he's both a scientist and a believer is only the latter
moreover, he's a problem for the scientific community because he's the source of all the claims "A lot of scientists are believers", "Science doesn't preven you from havign faith" and so on
this is not true, period
it is just that there are a lot of scientific fields where you do not really deal with questions concerning origins; it is only theoretical physics and biology who do so there are peple who never faced the problem and never even asked themselves these question which is wisely used by religion proponents
moreover, he's a problem for the scientific community because he's the source of all the claims "A lot of scientists are believers", "Science doesn't preven you from havign faith" and so on
this is not true, period
it is just that there are a lot of scientific fields where you do not really deal with questions concerning origins; it is only theoretical physics and biology who do so there are peple who never faced the problem and never even asked themselves these question which is wisely used by religion proponents
I admit that germany has contributed a lot to the downfall of mankind, but you can't deny the achievements it has made.
Carl Benz and Gottlied Daimler invented the car, Philipp Reis is one of the inventors of the telefon, Conrad Röntgen dicovered the x-rays, Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, just to name a few, since there are many more in the fields of medicine, literature, music , technology and other sciences.
Would you say those achievements are not remotely important at all ?
What about Johannes Gutenberg who invented the printing press ?
Old English is actually a variety of Germanic languages. Later on it was frequently influenced by scandinavian languages during the viking attacks,by french after the norman conquest as well as by latin and greek in the period of christianisation.
Whats important is that the language changed from a synthetic to an analytic language, which basically means that it was simplified. A lot of inflections and cases were dropped.
I doubt that the difference between an analytic and synthetic language has much impact on the complexity of our thinking, considering the analogy of our environment, but i have read an interesting article about Benjamin Lee Whorf, who studied Native American languages such as Hopi. In the Hopi language system there is no abstract symbol or word for past present and future, compared to SAE(Standard Average European) Time is not a lenghts, but the relation between two incidents. They strictly distinguish between imaginary plural and realistic plural (the difference between 10 Men and 10 Weeks).
Altogether, it seems that their whole way of thinking is so much different from ours, based on their language and of course their environment, however i dont know if you could say thst is Hopi less complex, for i have'nt had the chance to put more research into it.
I don't think the difference between English and other SAE languages, whether they are synthetic, analytic or agglutinative, is fundamental concerning the complexity of thinking , because we all know what native english speakers have achieved and contributed to modern life and are capable of.
Carl Benz and Gottlied Daimler invented the car, Philipp Reis is one of the inventors of the telefon, Conrad Röntgen dicovered the x-rays, Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, just to name a few, since there are many more in the fields of medicine, literature, music , technology and other sciences.
Would you say those achievements are not remotely important at all ?
What about Johannes Gutenberg who invented the printing press ?
Old English is actually a variety of Germanic languages. Later on it was frequently influenced by scandinavian languages during the viking attacks,by french after the norman conquest as well as by latin and greek in the period of christianisation.
Whats important is that the language changed from a synthetic to an analytic language, which basically means that it was simplified. A lot of inflections and cases were dropped.
I doubt that the difference between an analytic and synthetic language has much impact on the complexity of our thinking, considering the analogy of our environment, but i have read an interesting article about Benjamin Lee Whorf, who studied Native American languages such as Hopi. In the Hopi language system there is no abstract symbol or word for past present and future, compared to SAE(Standard Average European) Time is not a lenghts, but the relation between two incidents. They strictly distinguish between imaginary plural and realistic plural (the difference between 10 Men and 10 Weeks).
Altogether, it seems that their whole way of thinking is so much different from ours, based on their language and of course their environment, however i dont know if you could say thst is Hopi less complex, for i have'nt had the chance to put more research into it.
I don't think the difference between English and other SAE languages, whether they are synthetic, analytic or agglutinative, is fundamental concerning the complexity of thinking , because we all know what native english speakers have achieved and contributed to modern life and are capable of.
1. I posted the Steven Weinberg essay, he sums things up very well
you didn't bother to comment on it
2. the Grand Canion article
3. The Catholic Church in Kenya forcing the museum not to show human phossils
4. these arguments:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm
and a number of others, but these will be enough
you didn't bother to comment on it
2. the Grand Canion article
3. The Catholic Church in Kenya forcing the museum not to show human phossils
4. these arguments:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm
and a number of others, but these will be enough
I didn't mean inventors, I meant philosophers and mathematicians, people of pure abstract thinking
there is a significant difference between what English speaking countries and Germany, Russia and others have produced
of course all this changes after the WWII but that's because science as a whole became concentrated in the USA
anyway, it's just a hypothesis (when I said theory I meant theory in the non-scientific sense), but it's worth knowing
there is a significant difference between what English speaking countries and Germany, Russia and others have produced
of course all this changes after the WWII but that's because science as a whole became concentrated in the USA
anyway, it's just a hypothesis (when I said theory I meant theory in the non-scientific sense), but it's worth knowing
Please, let us go over what you said:
Son, what QUESTIONS have I avoided? You made a claim that I am avoiding questions so post up the QUESTIONS. My failure to comment on a link can be attributed to several factors. It could be that the link actually has no purpose here or doesn't support anything the poster is talking about, it could be because I don't believe teh poster even understands the info contained in the link, or it could be that I haven't had enough coke bottles to snack on and need to make a run to the store to get them.
OK, I will ask you some very specific questions:
what do you believe in:
Young Earth, Old Earth?
Literal interpretation of the scipture?
what's your opinion on the evolution theory, the current scientific estimates of the age of the universe?
what do you think about what's going on in Kansas?
what's your opinion on Quote mining
what do you think about the Scopes trial
what do you believe in:
Young Earth, Old Earth?
Literal interpretation of the scipture?
what's your opinion on the evolution theory, the current scientific estimates of the age of the universe?
what do you think about what's going on in Kansas?
what's your opinion on Quote mining
what do you think about the Scopes trial
Son you made a claim POSTS AGO, that I was avoiding QUESTIONS. I asked you to post THOSE questions not go on a tangent and make up some shit that no one really cares about. Either you back up your allegation or you continue to make a fool of yourself.
Again, you said, "and you just avoid answering uncomfortable questions", and you said this BEFORE you posted these NEW questions. Where are the OLD/ORIGINAL questions that you posted?
Again, you said, "and you just avoid answering uncomfortable questions", and you said this BEFORE you posted these NEW questions. Where are the OLD/ORIGINAL questions that you posted?
will you answer those questions I posted or not?
all I hear from you is defending religion, more precisely Christianity, with very few facts and serious arguments cited and mostly using verbal attacks against the person you're arguing with
please stop turning the debate away from what we were discussing and post something meaningful
all I hear from you is defending religion, more precisely Christianity, with very few facts and serious arguments cited and mostly using verbal attacks against the person you're arguing with
please stop turning the debate away from what we were discussing and post something meaningful
from a scientific point of view there is no difference because they are both bad science, they are no science at all actually
ID is just a disguised version of creationism, used to spread the virus more widely
BTW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
ID is just a disguised version of creationism, used to spread the virus more widely
BTW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Son, I have posted several things that may be defined as meaningful, and even several posters here have pointed it out. You are trying to use every trick in the book to AVOID being held accountable for your words.
Are these questions the original questions you accused me of avoiding? If so I will answer them as soon as you show me what page they are on. If these are NOT the ORIGINAL questions you accuse me of avoiding the answer is no. Again, you either BACK YOUR CLAIM/ACCUSATION or you make a fool of yourself.
Son I am not verbally attacking you. I am simply proving myself correct in my assessment, and I thank you for contributing to the fact. Everything I have said about you has VALIDITY. Everything you have said about me is rooted in foolishness and whimisical thinking, and only a person of your mental capacity can accomplish such a feat. I am not defending religion or christianity when I have pretty much said that several school of thoughts or religions besides christianity can yeild the same results when it comes to MORALITY.
Son YOU did this on page one. Aagian, back your claim or continue to make yourself appear as a fool.
Are these questions the original questions you accused me of avoiding? If so I will answer them as soon as you show me what page they are on. If these are NOT the ORIGINAL questions you accuse me of avoiding the answer is no. Again, you either BACK YOUR CLAIM/ACCUSATION or you make a fool of yourself.
Son I am not verbally attacking you. I am simply proving myself correct in my assessment, and I thank you for contributing to the fact. Everything I have said about you has VALIDITY. Everything you have said about me is rooted in foolishness and whimisical thinking, and only a person of your mental capacity can accomplish such a feat. I am not defending religion or christianity when I have pretty much said that several school of thoughts or religions besides christianity can yeild the same results when it comes to MORALITY.
Son YOU did this on page one. Aagian, back your claim or continue to make yourself appear as a fool.