Muz if you read my post i dont say it the paranormal is 'anti-science' or anything of the sort. Until i have proved or disproved something personally i tend to never really trust other peoples data - thats why i said i wanted to go on some ghost hunts !
Personally I believe that there is something strange happening and we can not explain it...I could design some seriously cool electronics to detect the alleged energies being emitted - perhaps i should ring up most haunted or whatever it was called .
If the reports are to be believed, and a ghost does cool down a surrounding area - it must be absorbing heat energy for some reason.
I can not see why science and religion etc say can not get on - i may be a scientist - but i do believe in god or as i like to think a "big boss" - science has only made me belive more - theres just to many coincidences - the earth having a magnetic ferrous core to cancel out radiation, the moon being the perfect size and distance to do a perfect solar eclipse.
HT, I didn't mean you. I meant the 'scientific community', i.e. the non-intellectual academics who think that everything they learned in the universities are true. The same type of idiots who claimed that fire is caused by philogiston (sp?), not oxygen and the ones who claimed that Vitamin C didn't exist. I'm of the belief that the theory of evolution and the Adam and Eve theory could co-exist, like maybe God evolved Adam from monkeys, though both the mainstream monotheistic religious community and the mainstream scientific community would call me a heretic for even thinking such things.
There's plenty of things on this planet left unexplained, but it could probably be a few years/decades/centuries before people figure them out. After all, the very concept of an atom or electromagnetic rays was unimaginable a few centuries ago, a few centuries in the future, we may actually find out what happens after death. Maybe consciousness isn't just in the head like today's scientists claim..
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
"I can not see why science and religion etc say can not get on"
Part of the problem is that the two sides don't know enough about each other.
For example, many scientists assume that the age of religion automatically out-dates it. But I've known a lot of sciency people who've stood dumbfounded when they've been shown some of the scientifically accurate stuff in the Bible, like descriptions of the globe-like shape of the earth, the water cycle, and hygiene laws thousands of years before their time.
On the other hand, many religionists simply don't understand the scientific principles that they're criticising.
For example, evolution. You can't just say "Evolution is wrong", because evolution is a bracket term. It has sub-areas, some of which have more supporting evidence than others. The concept of natural selection, for example, has been a proven fact for thousands of years (selective breeding has exploited this since caveman days). But the 'primordial soup' idea is a far weaker principle - which is why a considerable number of scientists don't agree with it. It doesn't mean they don't believe in evolution, just that the 'primordial soup' idea is a stab in the wrong direction.
While its true that the majority of zealous fucks don't know what they're attacking, you're wrong in suggesting that scientists don't understand religion. The majority of scientists are religious as a simple manner of statistics (though yes the incidence of atheism would be higher, and unless they're retarded the religious ones tend to be deists).
For example, many scientists assume that the age of religion automatically out-dates it.
That's non sequitur, and as such I doubt any real scientists assume this.
But I've known a lot of sciency people who've stood dumbfounded when they've been shown some of the scientifically accurate stuff in the Bible
You're either lying or talking about idiots.
like descriptions of the globe-like shape of the earth, the water cycle, and hygiene laws thousands of years before their time
The sphericity of the earth has been know for thousands of years (flat-earthism had a minor resurgence during the dark ages, DUE to biblical literalism), the water cycle was not properly understood (at the precipitation stage) until a couple of centuries ago at most, and the biblical 'hygiene laws' are mostly fucking ridiculous (and even if they weren't, simple trial-and-error over generations of civilisation is a more plausible explanation than divine knowledge).
The conflict between religion and science exists only where positive claims are made by dogma. In these cases it is within the ability, and duty, of science to refute them.
Advertisement
Post Reply
- thats why i said i wanted to go on some ghost hunts 
!
