info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Science
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
Feb 12, 2015, 12:38:21 AM2/12/15
to
Science
Science is the art of knowledge. Science is the art of knowledge researched, understood, and conforming with the factual laws of the physical universe. And when an hypothesis progresses to theory, one would hope that science is advancing, yet one must always question just how wise a theory of evolution really is. And whether this science of ancient Terra firma, with its conforming, yet shape-shifting truths of historical certainties of geological conundrum and biological certainties really, in the end, are the fruit of sound theorisation, or hypothesis gone mad. It is debated, creation versus evolution, and each side is certain of its facts, yet will one ultimately prevail? By God's grace the truth and the proper scientific method will be exalted on fact by hard won fact. To speculate and build an entire doctrine of existence on believed things is perhaps not that wise. And evolution is guilty of this, because it lacks historical witness upon its validation. Yet, in truth, so does religion. It lumbers ahead with a conclave of 'theorists' who have properly expounded the facts of God's creation, and just exactly were Noah's Ark really finally came to rest, and why dinosaurs were indeed on the ark, despite the obvious observation of young John sceptic that 'that's a pile of baloney.' Science, in the end, will or will not reconcile with religious truth. The evolution, if a theistic evolutionist may admit this, and the creationist expounds it most certainly. Yet, as we progress, what I fear in the tomes of so many 'reliable' future textbooks on the certainties of abiogenesis is that they will quote such and such as certainly correct and so and so as definite in his scholasticism, yet all the time ignore the plethora of voices in their own field who contradict and deny and see it this way and that way and indeed the other also. Science is the true understanding of the universe, and while so much of physical and chemical and biological truths have indeed been rightly taught, and indeed by both warring parties, the key issue of origins remains a murky field which neither party is willing to give much or any ground on either. A rationale approach questions, with all the obviousness of it all, that there certainly couldn't have been so many animals on the ark, and because of this obvious fact, how can it really be true? And the creationist continues to insist on dogmatic literalism's, and will not brook any queries from the inquiring mind which does not yet know the full story as to why their bible seems to have a lot of problems with it. Nay, the theologian of fundamentalism would rather mock willy nilly, than say to the fellow 'you know, in God's truth, we haven't really got all the answers quite yet either.' It's way too much faith in their views, which bugs me. It's way to much of simply accepting the bible without rational and critical reasoning which just puts me off to the general vibe and attitude of the whole creationist world for the most part. They indeed might have the very truth of how we all got here - which I do personally in fact assent - but they don't really always come across as having that. In fact, its conceit a lot of the time, and half baked theories to explain biblical problems, rather than acknowledge there is still a lot of greater clarification of the core scientific principles and facts which need to be unearthed to gain the proper picture. And while Ty Tabor might say the scientists dogma seems awfully religious, so does the fundamentalists at times as well. What is the genuine truth seeking inquirer who just puts the debate on hold, pissed off at the conflict of it all, really supposed to do or believe? The spirit of true science, which is investigation into how things works and fit together in this universe and how we can apply this knowledge for the betterment of society really needs a great respect for its core discipline of the scientific method, and a lot of people need to be a lot more respectful and cautious before they go around either damning to 'cultic fundamentalism' or 'atheistic hell-fire' their opponents, and show each other more respect, more consideration and a far more courteous and civilised scientific investigation into the evidence, the facts and the truth of what still is a heated and debated centre of current scientific understanding. Science, in many ways, has those three main branches: Physics, Chemistry and Biology, and there are professors throughout the world experted and trained on their disciplines knowledge to amazing levels of scholastic expertise. But what is so disappointing is a rivalry of thought which, in the end, refuses to cooperate in a friendly and peaceable investigation into scientific foundations and truths, which make this field still such a quagmire of heat and divide when mankind should really have started working out better paradigms, in the scientific analysis, for understanding the bigger picture.
http://hnfworldnews.angelfire.com
Science is the art of knowledge. Science is the art of knowledge researched, understood, and conforming with the factual laws of the physical universe. And when an hypothesis progresses to theory, one would hope that science is advancing, yet one must always question just how wise a theory of evolution really is. And whether this science of ancient Terra firma, with its conforming, yet shape-shifting truths of historical certainties of geological conundrum and biological certainties really, in the end, are the fruit of sound theorisation, or hypothesis gone mad. It is debated, creation versus evolution, and each side is certain of its facts, yet will one ultimately prevail? By God's grace the truth and the proper scientific method will be exalted on fact by hard won fact. To speculate and build an entire doctrine of existence on believed things is perhaps not that wise. And evolution is guilty of this, because it lacks historical witness upon its validation. Yet, in truth, so does religion. It lumbers ahead with a conclave of 'theorists' who have properly expounded the facts of God's creation, and just exactly were Noah's Ark really finally came to rest, and why dinosaurs were indeed on the ark, despite the obvious observation of young John sceptic that 'that's a pile of baloney.' Science, in the end, will or will not reconcile with religious truth. The evolution, if a theistic evolutionist may admit this, and the creationist expounds it most certainly. Yet, as we progress, what I fear in the tomes of so many 'reliable' future textbooks on the certainties of abiogenesis is that they will quote such and such as certainly correct and so and so as definite in his scholasticism, yet all the time ignore the plethora of voices in their own field who contradict and deny and see it this way and that way and indeed the other also. Science is the true understanding of the universe, and while so much of physical and chemical and biological truths have indeed been rightly taught, and indeed by both warring parties, the key issue of origins remains a murky field which neither party is willing to give much or any ground on either. A rationale approach questions, with all the obviousness of it all, that there certainly couldn't have been so many animals on the ark, and because of this obvious fact, how can it really be true? And the creationist continues to insist on dogmatic literalism's, and will not brook any queries from the inquiring mind which does not yet know the full story as to why their bible seems to have a lot of problems with it. Nay, the theologian of fundamentalism would rather mock willy nilly, than say to the fellow 'you know, in God's truth, we haven't really got all the answers quite yet either.' It's way too much faith in their views, which bugs me. It's way to much of simply accepting the bible without rational and critical reasoning which just puts me off to the general vibe and attitude of the whole creationist world for the most part. They indeed might have the very truth of how we all got here - which I do personally in fact assent - but they don't really always come across as having that. In fact, its conceit a lot of the time, and half baked theories to explain biblical problems, rather than acknowledge there is still a lot of greater clarification of the core scientific principles and facts which need to be unearthed to gain the proper picture. And while Ty Tabor might say the scientists dogma seems awfully religious, so does the fundamentalists at times as well. What is the genuine truth seeking inquirer who just puts the debate on hold, pissed off at the conflict of it all, really supposed to do or believe? The spirit of true science, which is investigation into how things works and fit together in this universe and how we can apply this knowledge for the betterment of society really needs a great respect for its core discipline of the scientific method, and a lot of people need to be a lot more respectful and cautious before they go around either damning to 'cultic fundamentalism' or 'atheistic hell-fire' their opponents, and show each other more respect, more consideration and a far more courteous and civilised scientific investigation into the evidence, the facts and the truth of what still is a heated and debated centre of current scientific understanding. Science, in many ways, has those three main branches: Physics, Chemistry and Biology, and there are professors throughout the world experted and trained on their disciplines knowledge to amazing levels of scholastic expertise. But what is so disappointing is a rivalry of thought which, in the end, refuses to cooperate in a friendly and peaceable investigation into scientific foundations and truths, which make this field still such a quagmire of heat and divide when mankind should really have started working out better paradigms, in the scientific analysis, for understanding the bigger picture.
http://hnfworldnews.angelfire.com
0 new messages