Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?

 

[rocala]

It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now.

It is interesting that you use the word "now" as opposed to always. This seems to be religions catching up with science. The spherical earth for example.

 

[Stevicus]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?


View attachment 81704View attachment 81705

Well, I don't think there's any real comparison here. Religion and religious texts really don't give enough plain, factual information as to be of any scientific use. The Bible says "God created the Heaven and the Earth." Well, how was this done? Where are God's equations? What tools and equipment were used? What materials and elements, and how were they manipulated and mixed together to create this place? When a scientist does something, they take notes and publish their work, but religion just gives us a lot of vague, mystical talk which can be interpreted in any number of ways. Scientific language has to be far more precise and detailed, and they have to show their work, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your OP does not appear to have anything to do with the title of the thread. When has science ever shown any religion to be accurate?

 

[rocala]

Ask God your questions. I am not God.

Well god did not post. You did, and you are being asked.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?

Not that the vast majority of scientists would recognise though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts.

I love when inchoate statements are introduced by threads sporting inane titles.

 

[ChristineM]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?


View attachment 81704View attachment 81705

What?

Discovery Institute claims do not count as science.

 

[George-ananda]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?

I think science is a great thing but limited to what is detectable by our physical senses and instruments. That is a fine methodology and allows objective verification of truth.

The spiritual teachers can experience and sense things that are not directly detectable by the physical senses and can thus give us a grander view of reality.

I think many of the things known by the teachers of the ancient eastern (Hindu) religious wisdom traditions will be part of future science.

 

[rocala]

Well @AnthonyGiarrusso you have been quite busy here in your early RF membership. Looking at your posts and responses I would say that you are punching well above your weight. There is no problem with having different opinions or suggesting new ideas, just be prepared to defend them. That means thinking, researching, and preparing what you say in an articulate manner. That's the way we all learn.
Enjoy your time on RF.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I don't think there's any real comparison here. Religion and religious texts really don't give enough plain, factual information as to be of any scientific use. The Bible says "God created the Heaven and the Earth." Well, how was this done? Where are God's equations? What tools and equipment were used? What materials and elements, and how were they manipulated and mixed together to create this place? When a scientist does something, they take notes and publish their work, but religion just gives us a lot of vague, mystical talk which can be interpreted in any number of ways. Scientific language has to be far more precise and detailed, and they have to show their work, too.

You claim that translated, re-translated, interpreted,
& re-interpreted poetic language of bronze age &
early iron age goatherds lacks scientific rigor?
Astounding!

 

[Stevicus]

You claim that translated, re-translated, interpreted,
& re-interpreted poetic language of bronze age &
early iron age goatherds lacks scientific rigor?
Astounding!

Well, yeah, they just made it all up out of their own imagination - or they may have copied it from someone else who made it up.

But if religion is really just some sort of advanced science - far ahead of conventional science as we know it today - then you'd think their texts would at least have something - even if we don't understand it. It might sound more like "Using a bilateral kelilactiral, God created the Heaven and Earth through a paralateral rentrillic trajectory."

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yeah, they just made it all up out of their own imagination - or they may have copied it from someone else who made it up.

But if religion is really just some sort of advanced science - far ahead of conventional science as we know it today - then you'd think their texts would at least have something - even if we don't understand it. It might sound more like "Using a bilateral kelilactiral, God created the Heaven and Earth through a paralateral rentrillic trajectory."

If scripture really did have science, there'd be
mention of retro encabulators & panendermic
sperving pronkules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If scripture really did have science, there'd be
mention of retro encabulators & panendermic
sperving pronkules.

Somebody saw my latest thread!

 

[Viker]

"Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!"

No it doesn't.

If you're claiming it you need to own it. Show the science.

 

[Windwalker]

I love when science proves religious philosophies into scientific facts. I give maximum respect to that. We have ghost science now and we have documented dozens of real sea monsters. However I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?


View attachment 81704View attachment 81705

I noticed you don't give any real examples. But my first response is this. 99% of the time in claims like this, it's nothing more than just a modern reinterpretation of the Bible that tries to make it seems as if it fits the science. But in reality it is really is just a bad reading of the text in an effort to force fit it into the science in this mistaken idea that science somehow is needed to validate religious texts.

But by all means, make your case to dispute that what I just said doesn't answer most all of this claim you are making. I look forward to you offering specific examples that cannot be understood by what I just said.

 

[cladking]

It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?

Yes and no.

Sure religion is ahead of science but it can only progress from adopting scientific ideas. The root of religion and of reality is logical and it requires the rigorous logic of mathematics and experimental results to steer thinking.

The boat of human knowledge is steered by its rudder which follows behind.

No. This is not a joke and I don't find it at all funny.

 

[gnostic]

We have ghost science now

there is no such thing as “ghost science”?

do you mean the “parapsychology” research?

that have been deemed to be pseudoscience garbage.

parapsychology doesn’t fall under the Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

but even in Social Sciences, the scientists in these groups, have rejected parapsychology and paranormal phenomena.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

. It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?

No heliocentric model, no evolution, no bacteria or viruses, no mental illness, it seems to me organized religions like Christianity are centuries behind science.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well god did not post. You did, and you are being asked.

God got banned.