Science IS religion

[Darkstorn]

The way we respond speaks for itself.

Yes. Yes it does. This is exactly your biggest problem and i'm actually starting to really be startled by your cognitive dissonance.

 

[stvdv]

you did make a claim of my knowledge level.

Yes after your claim about my "Spirituality is a cop out". But I read your post, and know that you wrote it, but did not think about it in that way. Same as I wrote about "you can't know what I know about Spirituality", I had no belittling thought. Just stating that you don't know how I practice it.

I can see now, that how I wrote it was a bit clumsy; could be easy misread. Sorry for that.

English is not my native language, so here I was not clear. And maybe I misinterpreted the words "cop out" also. I did not know what it meant, so had to google it; google even gave exactly our example. And I got the feeling that "cop out" means something "avoiding to do what one should do". To me Spirituality is the opposite of "avoiding what you should do". But maybe you meant something different with "cop out". I should have asked.

I might not, but you don't really know that. It's an educated guess at the very best, and you know it. I'm simply trying to give you the lesson of carefulness

I guess we both were trying to give the same lesson of carefulness to each other. Thanks for your lesson.

When i say i didn't say what you think i did, why don't you believe me? I've no reason to lie

Okay, I believe you. Good lesson for me, next time I better ask what someone means, before reacting. Thanks

So i think personally you're stretching the meaning of spirituality if you're actually trying to use it to describe science.

No, I was not trying to do that. I only wanted to ask "Dad" if he thought Religion was a better/other way than Spirituality?

The only way it would be comparable, in my opinion, is if everyone had the SAME ideas of spirituality. Only then would these "rules" and "disciplines" be comparable to the ones found in science.

In the Vedas Spirituality and Science don't bite as I understand it. They are a welcome addition to each other.

I see them as kind of complementary to each other (I rather use them both in my Spiritual Quest):
Spirituality gives Science "heart" , whereas Science keeps Spirituality "grounded".
Spirituality takes care of the roots, whereas Science takes care of what is above the ground
Spirituality deals with the "Inner World", whereas Science deals with the "Outer World"

 

[dad]

[1] A wooden boat made to bible specifications would have broken in half with the first three foot wave.

False. You do not even know what gopher wood was or what strengthening features the Architect employed. Nor do you know where on the waters it was or what waves were there at the time...etc etc.

[2] A wooden boat that size without a rudder would founder and sink with the first set of five foot waves.

Chapter and verse that it had no rudder?

The largest ships made of wood, by teams of shipbuilders, using better technology have been no longer than 300 feet. The Santa Maria was only 75 feet long. Genesis 6:15 puts the ark at 450 feet. It would be impossible for a ship this size to be made seaworthy, especially in light of the technology and the building team.

The Almighty told Noah exactly how to build it. His technology is superior to that we see today.

[3] There was only one hatch - in the top. How did they muck out the manure of five million species of animals?

One hatch...lots of windows. Besides I have heard that it is likely that God induced a semi hibernation state for many of the animals at least some of the time. You also had 8 workers on the ship.

[4] Once the salt water receded, where was the vegetation necessary for life?

Salt water?? How do we know it was as salty then? Vegetation? Noah was not placed in charge of that. Where do you think the plants came from in the garden? God planted them.

What did the carnivores eat until the planet was repopulated?

The original kinds which is all that was on the ark by the way, are said to have been largely vegetarian. one feature we read about that former nature is that trees grew in weeks. So there was plenty of plants for all! There was also dying creatures and sea creature to eat.

How did the animals get back to their habitats without food or fresh water?

Easy. They had rain and lots of lakes and rivers and etc etc etc. They had all the food they could ever want with the fast growing grass and plants also!

[5] What did the meat-eaters eat? Every time Noah fed the lions or the tigers, *poof* - another species of animal goes extinct.

At that time many may have been either omnivorous or vegetarians and there was rapid reproduction also, so that there was still animals dying too. There was insects also! Fish too!

[6] There is not enough water on the earth, to flood all the mountains, as specified in the Bible.

Not any more which goes toward evidence it was taken away!
Remember that it came from the far side of the universe via worm hole like conduits that opened up called windows of heaven! We don't know how it was taken away, but I suspect a lot of it was also taken off the world the same way. The bible talks of greats winds that were associated with the process!

[7] If it did rain enough water [magic?] to cover all the mountains in only forty days, the rainfall would be as dense as actual water - like being in a waterfall, which would have destroyed Noah's wooden boat in minutes.

No. There were giant windows in the sky pouring the water onto the planet, as well as giant opening in the earth releasing waters from below. The word for rain could be thought of in the early phases of the flood more like...pouring down.

[8] Noah did not bring trees on board. Trees die when drowned. Once Noah opened his boat, he would have seen nothing but deadwood and mud. All the herbivores would starve within days.

As mentioned God too care of the plant dept. No worries. We also read in the ancient record of Genesis that trees grew to fruition in weeks or sometimes even less! That means ancient tree rings, by the way, do not represent years also.

[9] If the human race descended from Noah and his sons, we would see a genetic bottleneck in the human genome roughly 4,000 years back. Do we see this? No.

That seems to be evidence that in that former nature there was no genetics for man as we know it today exactly. The DNA and such would start to work differently if the laws of nature changed...of course. You cannot trace back modern DNA that far!!!!

[10] The population of the world is too high if all humanity came from only four breeding pairs a few thousand years ago.

False. The reproduction rates and instances of triplets and etc were greater in that time!

By the way, for all I know the human gestation period in the former nature could have been shorter...who knows!? Example maybe three months.

[11] A 450ft boat could not hold two or seven or whatever of every species. The number and variation of species of insects alone-- would have filled up the ark, hundreds of times over.

False premise. The only animals taken on board were the created KINDS! Not all species and etc etc. Tha means that if we see for example say, 33 species of tigers today, it is likely there was only one on the ark. The rest presumably.evolved in that former nature into what we see today. Another feature of that former nature is RAPID evolution!

[12] Why are there ancient civilizations with continuous histories dating back to long before the generation of Noah? China and the Egyptians have such continuous histories, with no world sterilizing flood in them.

Simple. The dates for those civilizations are based on same state past radioactive decay dating methods. (or tree rings etc etc all based on same premise)

All civilizations are post flood!

[13] Cave paintings in Europe are drawn in Charcoal. Immersion in water would have erased them. These are 15,000 years and older.

See above...post flood.

[14] If there were a global flood, you would see a universal, world-wide layer of compressed mud dating the that time. This is not the case.

As I have said repeatedly I suspect the time of the flood may have been around the time the KT layer was laid down. That is a sedimentary layer and it contains iridium. Iridium is said by science to be found deep in the earth, and in space. Same places the flood water came from!!!!!!!!!

[15] Putting enough fresh [rain] water into the salt oceans to cover the mountains, would dilute it to dangerous levels killing all marine life

With rapid adapting/evolution being a feature of the former nature NO problem! Even today salmon adapt from salt to fresh water for example.

[16] The number and variation of species of insects alone would have filled up the ark hundreds of times over. The number and variation of bird species including unique species from all the islands, would have filled up the ark multiple times over.

As explained, with rapid evolution the few kinds on the ark evolved rapidly.

[17] How did animals get from Australia to the ark, or from the ark back to Australia?

Easy peasy!!!! The walked! Panagea was post flood also most likely!!!

Now...got any tough ones?? Ha.

 

[dad]

No, I was not trying to do that. I only wanted to ask "Dad" if he thought Religion was a better/other way than Spirituality?

My 'religion' includes spirits.

 

[stvdv]

Conversely one (you in this case) can demonstrate that the beliefs are something more. We wait.

Okay, we wait.

 

[stvdv]

My 'religion' includes spirits.

My Spirituality includes God

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes after your claim about my "Spirituality is a cop out". But I read your post, and know that you wrote it, but did not think about it in that way. Same as I wrote about "you can't know what I know about Spirituality", I had no belittling thought. Just stating that you don't know how I practice it.

I actually have some experience / knowledge of Vedic practices. And specifically, how varied they are.

I can see now, that how I wrote it was a bit clumsy; could be easy misread. Sorry for that.

It's okay, it's based on a misunderstanding anyway. I'll apologize for calling you angry, it serves no useful purpose.

English is not my native language, so here I was not clear. And maybe I misinterpreted the words "cop out" also. I did not know what it meant, so had to google it; google even gave exactly our example. And I got the feeling that "cop out" means something "avoiding to do what one should do". To me Spirituality is the opposite of "avoiding what you should do". But maybe you meant something different with "cop out". I should have asked.

In the context of a debate, it's basically an answer that tries to remove the necessity for more information. I.E something that ends the discussion without having really answered it. In this particular case, it's a synonym for "not a good enough explanation in my opinion."

I guess we both were trying to give the same lesson of carefulness to each other. Thanks for your lesson.

No problem and thank you. I figure this is equally applicable as lesson for me as well.

No, I was not trying to do that. I only wanted to ask "Dad" if he thought Religion was a better/other way than Spirituality?

Ah. Then i too misunderstood what you were asking, so my answer was technically a cop out as well. You didn't really even ask me.

In the Vedas Spirituality and Science don't bite as I understand it. They are a welcome addition to each other.

I am a Buddhist, and it's the same way regarding science. In fact, many Buddhists seem to think as if science plain contradicts some teaching in buddhism, then it'd be appropriate to consider abandoning the teaching. I certainly think that way.

I see them as kind of complementary to each other (I rather use them both in my Spiritual Quest):
Spirituality gives Science "heart" , whereas Science keeps Spirituality "grounded".
Spirituality takes care of the roots, whereas Science takes care of what is above the ground
Spirituality deals with the "Inner World", whereas Science deals with the "Outer World"

I can vibe with that. Though i feel for me particularly, they are entirely interrelated. I cannot have a thought that contradicts reality, even if it's a question of me misunderstanding said reality.

 

[stvdv]

My 'religion' includes spirits.

"my" Spirituality does not include Spirits

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Aye, tis impossible to discuss science with those
who don't even agree on what it is & how it works.

You can discuss it, but they are prone to calling it magic, sorcery, witchcraft, and things of demons and the devil.

 

[Uncommon Sense]

To be honest, nothing would be more pleasing than if all of haughty and arrogant were wrong about a lot of things and were one day stupefied. Would be the funniest thing ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without venturing too far off topic, I suspect that the change occurred over a century after the time of the flood. That would be something like say 4500 years ago real time, or some 70 million faith based imaginary years based on a same state past based interpretation of isotope patterns.(decay)

I am sure that others asked, but what evidence do you have for this?

And even more important: What reasonable test could refute your belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If all one wanted to (like science does) is look at light HERE FROM elsewhere, one need not get off his armchair. If, however one makes supposedly scientific claims ABOUT what time is like out there, OR bases models upon the premise, THEN one does not know what one was talking about. (shoe...meet foot)
It is also seen here after it gets here only, that should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy.

I see that you still have no idea how science is done. Once again , just because you refuse to learn how to test your ideas does not mean that others cannot.

 

[stvdv]

In the context of a debate, it's basically an answer that tries to remove the necessity for more information. I.E something that ends the discussion without having really answered it. In this particular case, it's a synonym for "not a good enough explanation in my opinion."

Thank you for the "good enough explanation" of "cop out"

In fact, many Buddhists seem to think as if science plain contradicts some teaching in buddhism, then it'd be appropriate to consider abandoning the teaching. I certainly think that way.

Is that, what is meant, when they say "The final step is to kill the Buddha"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ostriches can be happy too. Cheer up.

Yes, the Ostrich Defense does have the plus of keeping the wilfully ignorant since they can maintain their false fantasies. Of course that tends to backfire over the long run. Something you might keep in mind.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I actually have engaged in numerous threads on the issue and can say authoritatively that it happened exactly as the bible says, and science has NOTHING to say about it.

You can SAY that-- you would be WRONG, of course-- I posted 17 ARK FAILS that 100% destroy any possibility of the Noah Myth being true.

Here it is again:

Edited by It Ain't Nessacarily So
NOAH: Any ONE of the following proves NOAH'S Ark Story myth:

[1] A wooden boat made to bible specifications would have broken in half with the first three foot wave.
[2] A wooden boat that size without a rudder would founder and sink with the first set of five foot waves. The largest ships made of wood, by teams of shipbuilders, using better technology have been no longer than 300 feet. The Santa Maria was only 75 feet long. Genesis 6:15 puts the ark at 450 feet. It would be impossible for a ship this size to be made seaworthy, especially in light of the technology and the building team.
[3] There was only one hatch - in the top. How did they muck out the manure of five million species of animals?
[4] Once the salt water receded, where was the vegetation necessary for life? What did the carnivores eat until the planet was repopulated? How did the animals get back to their habitats without food or fresh water?
[5] What did the meat-eaters eat? Every time Noah fed the lions or the tigers, *poof* - another species of animal goes extinct.
[6] There is not enough water on the earth, to flood all the mountains, as specified in the Bible.
[7] If it did rain enough water [magic?] to cover all the mountains in only forty days, the rainfall would be as dense as actual water - like being in a waterfall, which would have destroyed Noah's wooden boat in minutes.
[8] Noah did not bring trees on board. Trees die when drowned. Once Noah opened his boat, he would have seen nothing but deadwood and mud. All the herbivores would starve within days.
[9] If the human race descended from Noah and his sons, we would see a genetic bottleneck in the human genome roughly 4,000 years back. Do we see this? No.
[10] The population of the world is too high if all humanity came from only four breeding pairs a few thousand years ago.
[11] A 450ft boat could not hold two or seven or whatever of every species. The number and variation of species of insects alone-- would have filled up the ark, hundreds of times over.
[12] Why are there ancient civilizations with continuous histories dating back to long before the generation of Noah? China and the Egyptians have such continuous histories, with no world sterilizing flood in them.
[13] Cave paintings in Europe are drawn in Charcoal. Immersion in water would have erased them. These are 15,000 years and older.
[14] If there were a global flood, you would see a universal, world-wide layer of compressed mud dating the that time. This is not the case.
[15] Putting enough fresh [rain] water into the salt oceans to cover the mountains, would dilute it to dangerous levels killing all marine life
[16] The number and variation of species of insects alone would have filled up the ark hundreds of times over. The number and variation of bird species including unique species from all the islands, would have filled up the ark multiple times over.
[17] How did animals get from Australia to the ark, or from the ark back to Australia? The animals living there now go back to pre-historic times, and most are unique to that continent. Koalas require special diets. How did Mr and Mrs Koala carry their food with them all the way from Australia?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

False. You do not even know what gopher wood was or what strengthening features the Architect employed. Nor do you know where on the waters it was or what waves were there at the time...etc etc..

So, it's MAGIC then? Gotcha. Magic Wood: Because a wooden boat cannot make an ark as describes.

BUT I DO KNOW ABSOLUTELY WHAT THE WAVES WERE LIKE-- because THAT MUCH WATER, FALLING THAT FAST? WOULD BE EXACTLY LIKE INSIDE OF A WATERFALL.

The waves would have been EPIC.

Chapter and verse that it had no rudder?.

CHAPTER AND VERSE THAT SAYS IT DID-- ALL THE DETAILS ARE SPELLED OUT-- NO RUDDER.

One hatch...lots of windows. Besides I have heard that it is likely that God induced a semi hibernation state for many of the animals at least some of the time. You also had 8 workers on the ship..

CHAPTER AND VERSE FOR LOTS OF WINDOWS-- YOU ARE BEING QUITE FALSE, HERE-- THERE WERE TWO OPENINGS. THE BIBLE SPECIALLY STATES ONLY TWO. Why do you LIE?

Salt water?? How do we know it was as salty then? Vegetation? Noah was not placed in charge of that. Where do you think the plants came from in the garden? God planted them..

SO MAGIC AGAIN. Gotcha. Since ALL plant life-- ALL would have been DESTROYED.

God planted them? CHAPTER AND VERSE.

Easy. They had rain and lots of lakes and rivers and etc etc etc. They had all the food they could ever want with the fast growing grass and plants also!.

Nope. That's not what the bible says.

At that time many may have been either omnivorous or vegetarians and there was rapid reproduction also, so that there was still animals dying too. There was insects also! Fish too!.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Teeth prove you are WRONG.

Not any more which goes toward evidence it was taken away!.

MAGIC? Gotcha. .

I'm gonna skip the rest of the LIES.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Now...got any tough ones?? Ha.

Since you LIED about the previous ones? Or used MAGIC?

I will accept your admission you cannot refute ANY.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I only read where he's been quoted, or if he quotes me. I skim -- quickly-- the rest.

It only takes seconds, as he really says nothing original, new or interesting.

Saves boatloads of time, too. And not a little bit of sanity.

That is more than it deserves.

On the rare chance he would post something novel or interesting, I am willing to risk it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who cares what YOU suspect? You have -- repeatedly-- demonstrated a deathly fear of EVIDENCE.

You don't have ANY.

And you are deathly afraid of looking at any.

So your opinion is worth the same as a dog's opinion of the Super Bowl.

It is moo. Like a cow's opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is moo. Like a cow's opinion.

You see? Years of watching TV can pay off!