Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[civ2]

Zig
No, just bring me practical everyday life implementation of macro evolution (not adaptation or speciation, the cell-to-dino one).
Or bigbang.
All that "evidence" is but speculations and guesses, you can't ever know, whether the conditions even 6000 years ago were the same, as you THINK they were.
You weren't there!

fish
Wrong.
I only deny "scientific speculations", especially those that CAN'T be tested.
(Unless you invent a time machine.)
Nothing "scientific" in dinos, to your knowledge - pure guesses, that can't be neither proved nor disproved IN LABORATORY, thus nothing to do with REAL science.

 

[fishjie]

Dinosaur bones exist. From that, we can derive the existence of dinosaurs. Sounds like pretty solid proof to me.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Yes. They existed before the flood. People where riding them. With Saddles. Haven't you been to the Creation Museum?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Creation Museum itself is mere speculation, because I wasn't there.

 

[civ2]

Zig
We DON'T know how it was.
I'm not supporting ANY specific idea, but I'm also against taking any GUESS as a fact, to the extent of ruling out all other alternatives.
To do that scientifically, you must first TEST it yourself, by recreating exactly the same conditions.
Can you?
No, cause you don't know those conditions.
You can only guess.
So call it a guess, and search for anything we can benefit from it.
REAL benefit, not other baseless guesses.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To do that scientifically, you must first TEST it yourself, by recreating exactly the same conditions.
Can you?

I don't have enough imagination to build a Creation Museum

 

[civ2]

Zig
Yet, you agree when science does the similar.
Biased, aren't you, my friend.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have been to a Science Museum so therefore it's scientifically proven it exists.

 

[civ2]

Zig
I'm pretty serious, while you're just making fun of my question.
That proves only one thing - you have nothing to say seriously, so you resort to fooling around.
Again, name me one REAL-LIFE benefit we get from deciding that apes turned into humans.
If you know one, so just name it, seriously.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Zig
I'm pretty serious, while you're just making fun of my question.

In my defence, I only do that because I'm a sad little git who doesn't know when to call it quits.

That proves only one thing - you have nothing to say seriously, so you resort to fooling around.

And I'm a sad little git who doesn't know when to call it quits. So 2 things.

Again, name me one REAL-LIFE benefit we get from deciding that apes turned into humans.

I'd like to call this Exhibit Z your honour, and rest my defence.

 

[civ2]

Zig
So, you still said nothing serious, and still hold your mockery as a "proof" against myself.
Well, I've seen it before, many times.
Nothing new, nothing proved, nothing even worth looking at.
So why does it make me wanna break your face?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think that would be the "sad little git" part.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Or bigbang.
All that "evidence" is but speculations and guesses, you can't ever know, whether the conditions even 6000 years ago were the same, as you THINK they were.
You weren't there

if I make a video tape of an egg that commences a split second after dropping it to the floor and it breaking , could you make reasonable assumptions about the state of the egg before it broke ?

Yes ? We have the tape .

 

[civ2]

rugby
Exactly.
It's called Bible.
Bones are but a BROKEN DVD, you know what it was, but you have no way to check the ERASED contents.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I read about yolk in the Bible. They carry it around on their necks don't they?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'm not referring to bones , I'm referring to the proven expansion of the universe . We actually have the "time machine" that you said we would require . Hold your hand up in front of your face . You think you're looking at your hand ? Wrong , you're looking at an image of your hand from the extremely recent past . now extrapolate this principle over much larger distances .

I'm just saying that the idea that you need to have witnessed the past to draw conclusions about it is incorrect .

 

[civ2]

rugby
Sorry, but to TRUST such GUESSES, yes you have to.

 

[warpus]

Oh, I am not a priest and I am not trying to convert your mind. Also I am not the yogi and I have only tiny bit of knowledge of this phenomena through my consciouss spiritual life. However if you come across some books written by someone with deep spiritual knowledge there you can read some very complex stuff explained by using that very method or I could say written from above the mind. My favorite is perhaps Aurobindo Ghose aka Sri Aurobindo. http://sabda.sriaurobindoashram.org/index.php

So out of alll the phenomena humans have figured out (how to fly, how far away the moon is, what the solar system is, how planets are formed, how to build a radio, why we get sick, what cancer is, why moths have powdery wings, electricity etc.) NONE of them have been figured out by the method you describe..

and ALL have been arrived at using the scientific method.

That's because science is a tool designed to deal with that situation - an attempt to figure out how something works. If you use the wrong tool for that job, it's obviously not going to be nearly as successful! For example the "inner light" you mentioned, you're just not going to get anywhere.. that tool wasn't designed to handle the same sort of problem that the scientific method was. It's a spiritual tool - you use it for spiritual matters. It's not tool that can be effectively used to gather information about the Universe and learn about the inner workings of natural phenomena.

That's the problem - people using the wrong tool for the problem. If the problem is "How does this work?", use science. If the problem is spiritual in nature, use religion and meditation.

There is no conflict unless you make it one.

 

[ghostmaker650]

@bathsheba
Mockery is mockingly mocking.

@ghost
Pardon?!?
Who are you to decide, what "religion" knows?
(Or, simply said, I see this as just another "G-d can't be, cause He can't".)

Oh? And who are you to decide what religion knows?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

rugby
Sorry, but to TRUST such GUESSES, yes you have to.

Not entirely sure what you mean sorry .

But you do realise that IRL you do 100's of times what you deride scientists for , and whatsmore act upon your conclusions ? You observe the present and make a reasoned assumption about the past and act accordingly .

A scientist does the same , yet is even more rigorous in that the scientist even avoids the "reasoned assumption" part and endeavors to test this reasoned assumption before drawing a conclusion .