Religion, mammoths and dinosaurs,

[Bill]

perhaps the romans were jealous of his popularity so they strung him up.

There's no reason to believe the Romans wanted him killed.

well I think they killed the messiah. so they built the odd road, offered nothing since.

 

[Bigga]

You are, rather predictably and unsurprisingly, mistaking the role of religion in the genesis of science.

You are stating that as some early natural philosophers were publicly religious, that science was born of religion. This is a false syllogism.

You may as well state that science was born of beards as a large amount of early scientists were hirsute.

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

So yes, I was correct in stating what science is. The search for truth. As I say diametrically opposed to all forms of dogma from your lovely religion. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it's not science. Imagine how far science would have come on without religion acting as an anchor of ignorance.

Your nescience abounds, as usual (you haven't a fucking clue).

Fooking hilarious as usual! I see you've learned to 'cut and paste' from Wikipedia and pass it off as your own 'intellectual' work. Ha!!!!

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

Here's the interesting part, for me anyway...

'Heresy' is described as "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs". That, in itself, merely means that the belief as a whole was that we were the only planet and everything revolved around us. At NO POINT, can I find (nor yourself, quite clearly) any evidence that Galileo denounced religion or a non belief in God!

In fooking fact, Galileo used his " theory of heliocentrism" keep in line with the Scriptures over the flat view of the planet that was written in there.

Sorry, science working in tandem with religious outlook. As I said before, religion and science were NOT independent of each other, in the beginning and even the 'Father of Science Revolution' did not denounce religion and was, to all accounts, a DEVOUT Catholic, I have researched!!

I'm using your main argument against you and you say I have no clue?? You bore me.

Keep on with the insults, you're just making yourself look the royal fooking cnut.

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make, could you clarify?

When you say that science 'developed' from religion, or that the two weren't independent, do you mean that the people who first developed scientific principles were also religious? Or do you mean that those scientific principles developed as a direct consequence of religious principles?

I'm glad you have done research but the fact that many of the initial proponents of the scientific method were Catholics says about as much as if they were vegetarians. You could plausibly argue that their cultural perspective opened the door to the development of their critical and sceptical thinking, but that doesn't imply that what they created is dependent on or even influenced by the culture it came from.

It looks like what you're effectively implying is that correlation is equivalent to causation. Does this fairly reflect your point?

This is where I am at.

Even I know that in the Good Book, man is asked to think for themselves and to question. It also falls under the recognised words of 'free will' as is often indicated. Those that persecuted thinkers, like Galileo, were wrong. I find it amusing, Sky Blue Flux, that SWP's Back doesn't understand that Galileo's persecution were by people tethered to the literal word of the Book without understanding he wasn't against the idea of Creation!

Whilst Pythagoras postulated the Earth was round, wasn't it Muslim astronomers that calculated the Earth'c circumference out by 200 km in the 9th century? Were they persecuted?? Not as far as I am aware!

Even better still, in brief passing mentioned in the Book of Isaiah is the quote "There is One dwelling above the circle of the earth". Circle!! Interesting that was some form of question of how they were related to the planet. And before that, even, written in Job is the phrase "hanging the earth upon nothing" when it tries to explain the earth's existence. That's impressive, surely? People do gloss over scientific indications within the Book as they are small and easily bypassed within huge works, so become 'insignificant' when it comes to arguments between science and religion.

Just because it seems to be now, doesn't mean that the two are mutually exclusive as I, personally, don't think they need to be nor do the masses of religious doctors that work to save our lives every day.

You can argue against religion and religion can argue against science. It doesn't bother me. The deeper both are looked in to, the deeper the scepticism exists as more questions are raised from new answers.

 

[Skashion]

You do know the Earth isn't a circle don't you?

 

[Bigga]

You do know the Earth isn't a circle don't you?

I was using the quote to underline the understanding of it's spherical basis in BC times.

 

[Challenger1978]

If it is you'll be able to give me the sources of data then. Also, why does it ignore scientific advances made in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages? Why too, has it not labelled the Renaissance, the Christian Renaissance, as the Renaissance was substantially funded by Christian patronage? It's a graph that's very clearly biased against religion. That's before we even get to problem of assigning qualitative importance of scientific advances that allow us to plot a graph.

Serious question for you Skashion, are you a Muslim or someone related to a Muslim, or in fact are you yourself from the middle east or Asia ?

I don't mean anything nasty by asking that I'm just curious.

I have been pondering on the significance of this question for some time now, and am still none the wiser as to it's relevance to the thread.
Some of the most interesting, enlightening and rewarding conversations I have ever had regarding religion have been with Muslims, whereas some of the most ignorant bigots I have ever had the misfortune to converse with have been indigenous protestants, catholics and atheists.

The question was about understanding someone else perspective in general.

I know the concept of empathy is probably alien to a judgmental prick in a trance like yourself. I try to better myself though and see all the other sides point of view.

****

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Serious question for you Skashion, are you a Muslim or someone related to a Muslim, or in fact are you yourself from the middle east or Asia ?

I don't mean anything nasty by asking that I'm just curious.

I have been pondering on the significance of this question for some time now, and am still none the wiser as to it's relevance to the thread.
Some of the most interesting, enlightening and rewarding conversations I have ever had regarding religion have been with Muslims, whereas some of the most ignorant bigots I have ever had the misfortune to converse with have been indigenous protestants, catholics and atheists.

The question was about understanding someone else perspective in general.

I know the concept of empathy is probably alien to a judgmental prick in a trance like yourself. I try to better myself though and see all the other sides point of view.

****

And here's me thinking that you are merely an utter simpleton who needs to pigeonhole everyone into a nice little box so that they can better understand our complex world in basic terms.
Now remove your Caps Lock, and put the toys back in the box.

 

[yeah whatever !!]

A virtually complete mammoth is to go on display soon, a Tyrannosaurus skeleton, also virtually complete found in Montana, is also due to make an appearance.
How do religious folk square their beliefs that everything was created by God a few thousand years ago, when, in the case of mammoths, their existence terminated around 13000 years ago, and the T Rex around 65 million years past?
This is directed at some fundamentalist Christians, in the main, and Muslims, although there are a myriad of other faiths with similar views.

The Bible was written by those who knew the earth flat and the sun went round us..

 

[Skashion]

You do know the Earth isn't a circle don't you?

I was using the quote to underline the understanding of it's spherical basis in BC times.

Circle does not mean spherical so nothing is underlined.<br /><br />-- Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:27 am --<br /><br />

You do know the Earth isn't a circle don't you?

Just ripped all of my sons earth pics up and told him he's a thick ****. Fucking circles that'll teach him

Beat him black and blue until all his pictures of the Earth are oblong spheroids.

 

[Challenger1978]

I have been pondering on the significance of this question for some time now, and am still none the wiser as to it's relevance to the thread.
Some of the most interesting, enlightening and rewarding conversations I have ever had regarding religion have been with Muslims, whereas some of the most ignorant bigots I have ever had the misfortune to converse with have been indigenous protestants, catholics and atheists.

The question was about understanding someone else perspective in general.

I know the concept of empathy is probably alien to a judgmental prick in a trance like yourself. I try to better myself though and see all the other sides point of view.

****

And here's me thinking that you are merely an utter simpleton who needs to pigeonhole everyone into a nice little box so that they can better understand our complex world in basic terms.
Now remove your Caps Lock, and put the toys back in the box.

My fucking dummies out and my prams been smashed against the wall and i'm hungry for chicken.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKuCCvWAdG8[/youtube]

 

[yeah whatever !!]

A virtually complete mammoth is to go on display soon, a Tyrannosaurus skeleton, also virtually complete found in Montana, is also due to make an appearance.
How do religious folk square their beliefs that everything was created by God a few thousand years ago, when, in the case of mammoths, their existence terminated around 13000 years ago, and the T Rex around 65 million years past?
This is directed at some fundamentalist Christians, in the main, and Muslims, although there are a myriad of other faiths with similar views.

Where does it say this in any modern day Christian doctrine??

Two of each animal that God created went onto the ark, yes?

So where were the Dinosaurs?

Noah couldnt tell the diff between male and female dinosaurs.