M. C. Escher "Birds to Fish"
Posted on 07/04/2006 9:58:54 AM PDT by aculeus
If there were not "different kinds of science" then if all "science" must give the same answers for all times... or do you contend that the answers science gives never changes or when an answers changes what ever went before was not science... is it different kinds of science or that science can differ... either way if it differ it's not "universal"
.... As for You spoke of universal truth, which is redundant since there is not any other kind
....Nonsense there is also relative truth and contextual truth... science operates in relative or contextual truth of the known evidence it has as the time...
The key doctine of Chritianity is Christ. I don't rmember him saying anything about belief in the Genesis story being needed to enter Heaven.
Actually, that is the basis of science. In any given observation, the same results are to be expected for the same experiment. It is this repeatability of results that gives the scientist confidence that his observations, theories, and extrapolations have a basis in fact.
Scientists would be the first to agree that we are sometimes in the position of the blind men examining the elephant. Each acquires his own perception. But with enough blind observers, and enough comparison of observations, we would come to a pretty good approximation of the appearance of an elephant.
Over the course of centuries since the scientific method has been advanced, we have indeed explored many erroneous byways. What was found to be false was discarded. It isn't science that changes, it is the accuracy of the results.
I am sure that you would squirm in extreme discomfort if you responded to a question from the Lord on judgement day, "Did you bear false witness?"
"Well, there is also relative truth and contextual truth... I was always relatively truthful, Lord, within the context of the discussion."
nmh arriving at the pearly gates:
"Welcome to heaven! Even though you were blind to all the amazing works I put before your eyes, I'll still let you in. Perhaps in time you will come to recognize the glories of my work."
This Bunglawala guy is the same guy who issued death threat from Rueters to Charles at LGF. Link for this story here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20848&only
When you visit your medical doctor, he cannot look at you except as the product of millions of years of evolution.
Ask him.
In any event, he's now got a Government job.
From his profile.
In August 2005, Inayat was appointed by the Home Office as the Convenor of a working group on Tackling Extremism.
In any event, he's now got a Government job.
From his profile.
In August 2005, Inayat was appointed by the Home Office as the Convenor of a working group on Tackling Extremism.
Declaring 1+3=4, and also declaring that God had no work in creating 1 or 3 doesn't nullify 1+3=4. Indeed it has little or no relevance to 1+3=4.
My point is that no one ever had a true conversion by being forced to ignore science.
Mind you, I'm a stickler for going after scientists when I think they are reaching too far by going beyond science to justify their own politics or religion.
The infinite is where I always see God's hand. Where did the matter come from? How can the universe be infinite? How can it not be infinite? How can time start? These are the questions that reveal God to me.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite"
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
We used to have "His" and "Hers" coffee mugs. One day, I caught my wife using mine.
"Well," she said coyly, "aren't I?"
I've seen translations of the core part of al-Warrizmi's text, and even it is derivative. They happened to get lucky enough to conqueror parts of the Roman Empire where Diophantus' work was preserved, and India where there was a (thin) mathematical tradition among the Hindus. Put the two together, have one bright fellow think about it for a few months, and you get ibn Musa's results.
The text is tedious with repeated Muslim pieties inserted into the mathematics.
Truth be told, the biggest advance the Muslims gave the mathematical world, and probably the scientific world as a whole, was an intuitive classification of the 'wall paper groups', undertaken for purely aesthetic reasons due to the Sunni prohibition on figurative art. (Decorating everything with caligraphed verses form the Koran gets boring after a while.)
Possibly true, but the whole billion of them don't measure up to the intuitive graphical genius of M.C. Escher.
Islam wrong again.. christians who accept in evolution rejoice !!
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite"
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt..typo ??
The key doctine of Chritianity is Christ. I don't rmember him saying anything about belief in the Genesis story being needed to enter Heaven.
Jesus refered to Genesis 2 to support His teaching on marriage and divorce. Paul refered to Adam being created first in teaching on family authority structure. (Maybe he meant that men evolved first?)
If Genesis is only a story then nothing in the Bible can be taken seriously.
Well, you can take a chance on that if you like. Oztrich Boy's tagline refers to a statement by St. Augustine, found here, near the bottom of the page.
At the beginning of his "literal" commentary on Genesis, St. Augustine wrote: "No Christian will dare say that the [biblical] narrative must not be taken in a spiritual sense." In support of this he cites the familiar words of Paul in 1 Corinthians, "Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic."
It goes further, but that is not the point of this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.