I accept that genetic drift goes from earlier living things until later living things in unison with carbon dating.Do you accept that you and a carrot have a common ancestor?
Ciao
- viole
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I accept that genetic drift goes from earlier living things until later living things in unison with carbon dating.Do you accept that you and a carrot have a common ancestor?
Ciao
- viole
I accept that genetic drift goes from earlier living things until later living things in unison with carbon dating.
I'd like to meet some of such people. I seem to see few or none like that, but instead an awful anti-science tiny minority that spends a lot of time trolling their ideology on the internet.My impression is that religious people are more anxious to be scientifically fit.
I don't know but it certainly seems that way.That is not what I asked.
Do you accept that you and a carrot, or a rat, a tree, a pig, a butterfly, a fungus, etc. share a common ancestor?
Simple bit answer. Yes/no
Ciao
- viole
If I had to bet that something would behave that way in the future I would certainly bet on it.That is not what I asked.
Do you accept that you and a carrot, or a rat, a tree, a pig, a butterfly, a fungus, etc. share a common ancestor?
Simple one bit answer. Yes/no
Ciao
- viole
Yes although I could not find any proof of that online. I did find an interesting article though that talked about how difficult it is to find DNA matches when species are far removed. Genetics, DNA, plants and humansSo, you agree that you and carrots share a common ancestor?
Ciao
- viole
Really? How many scientific theories on the origin of the Universe can you name?
I'm going to take the position that religion has nothing to do with science.
Do you disagree?
Why?
I disagree because you are wrong. Religion informs science and answers questions science cannot.
I disagree, if you need to ask why then, you really have no clue what you are talking about and should quit now.
I am pretty sure others won't be as "nice" to you.
I think it is actually the other way around. Science informs religion. Religion answers questions with questionable accuracy. Without science the questions answered by religion, one accepts at their own risk.
Religion has nothing to do with science.
This is a very bold statement ... "NOTHING"
Religion is about many things
Do you maybe mean "believing in God" has nothing to do with Science?
The only religion I think is valid is the one meant to reconcile us with the transcendent, which by definition is not the observable, not 'science'. Not the opposite of science exactly, but in a way, sorta the opposite. As different as a horse is from a baseball bat. A truly different type of thing.
There is though one instance I could think of where science informs (putatively!) the religion seemingly (seemingly I said. ) -- the one called "Christian Science" which is sorta a....odd religion, of limited appeal it seems: "The number of Christian Scientists in the United States was 270,000 in 1936 (the last reliable public count). Today, despite growth in the nation's population, actual church membership in the U.S. could well be down to 50,000..."
But generally, religion is about things you can't see -- not with any type of device ever, not a super collider, not any new kind of telescope or laser interference setup; you name it -- not things you can see, to try to simplify into a nutshell about the difference. (that is, for now....)
What we imagine is true about the natural world is. We imagine, with the imagination.The natural world is not imagination.i
Sure, it all begins with an hypothesis, which is created using the imagination. An hypothesis, is what we imagine is true, using the imagination. This does not challenge what I said. It validates and confirms it. It all begins with the imagination, dreams, faith, a vision, and such. Most everything the sciences has formulated, began within the imagination first.A scientist will build a hypothesis based on observation, they may use imagination (based on education and specific experience) to devise experiment to test the hypothesis.
Off the bat? Abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and the idea that the universe has always been here.
Religion has more to do with science than you might think.
And no, they are not actually opponents of each other. People who think this are idiots.
1. Science in its purest form is about the study of how things work in the the physical world.
2. Religion in its purest form is about a relationship with the supernatural world.
The problem is we don't have religion or science in their pure forms anymore. We have secular priests far more interested in seizing political power (actual church politics going on, where leaders are kinda trying to get a position) than studying what Jesus taught.
And we have basically "scientism" a cult where those in science basically have dogma and orthodoxy.
These two are opponents, because scientism proposes to claim it knows how the Earth began, and basically tries to horn in on religious teaching.
I don't know your reasons why. I know my reasons why I made the statement and am looking for someone capable of changing my mind.
I certainly hope not. I'm not looking for folks to be nice to me. I'm looking for someone to challenge my intellect.
If you study advaita you will see that Advaita takes "untrue claims" even a few steps further than scienceScience is a method of validation. A process to eliminate claims that are not true. Some religions rely on faith, which is the opposite of science. So a religion which encourages its followers to systematically question its claims. Tells it followers to take nothing on faith.
theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.
What we imagine is true about the natural world is. We imagine, with the imagination.
Sure, it all begins with an hypothesis, which is created using the imagination. An hypothesis, is what we imagine is true, using the imagination. This does not challenge what I said. It validates and confirms it. It all begins with the imagination, dreams, faith, a vision, and such. Most everything the sciences has formulated, began within the imagination first.
To quote Albert Einstein to make my point, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." The experience of the mysterious, opens the imagination, which is the source of all true art and science. It inspires and leads us to investigate what the imagination points us toward in its vision of what may be its truth.