Global Warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Global Warming? #2,781  
skspurling said:
Dark Ages? You mean when learning and science were preserved by the Irish monasteries? Maybe you mean the period after that when universities that provided the bastion of higher learning were all religious institutions? No? Maybe you mean that great hieratic, Isac Newton? Well, he did say "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Dang! He's not an atheist. So, where does this notion that science and religion are in direct opposition come from?Randy brings up an important point. If the problem is CO2, Why don't we plant more fast growing CO2 processing plants? The best answer I can think of is because it doesn't end up in the regulation of others behavior. The plants would sequester the carbon, and release the O2. Much better than just pulling it out of the air and burying it.
Click to expand...

I never said they were in direct opposition; what I was saying was at one time the church was as powerful an entity as was the government...England especially. With that kind of power, you persecute those whose ideas contradict the church dogma. You know it happened, just as I do. Didn't Gallileo have a run in with the church? Only when knowledge and science was out of the grips of the church, did it fluorish, otherwise it was done surreptitiously. As someone mentioned earlier, I believe that evolution was intelligent design at work. Other that some of the fundamentalists today, there is not a lot of friction between scientiests and theologians. In fact, archaeologists are tending to show that the bible is historically accurate. Atheists and theologians, however is another case all together.
 
   / Global Warming? #2,782  
   / Global Warming? #2,783  
2LaneCruzer said:
In fact, archaeologists are tending to show that the bible is historically accurate. Atheists and theologians, however is another case all together.
Click to expand...

Atheistic "science"... isn't.

Archaeological science... is.

There used to be peak oil "science"... some still "preach" it.

The ******* agenda remains the same. The "science" morphs to meet the ******* agenda... as needed.

...

patrick_g said:
Intelligent design? I think evolution IS intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Intelligent Design... requires intelligence. Intelligence is housed in a being (dimensions aside). To apply the supreme intelligence, bringing about the universe... requires supreme power. Supreme intelligence, housed in a Being, possessing supreme power... That is The Supreme Being.

To have caused/created all that is...via intelligent design... said Supreme Being would necessarily be the Causer... and, as it were, un-caused.

To apply these attributes to evolution?

???

The Supreme Being... is Omniscient/Omniscience. Possessing ALL Science...is what that word means.

Religion and science far apart? Perhaps.

The Creator/Supreme Being and Science being far apart?

Not possible.
 
Last edited:
   / Global Warming? #2,788  
2LaneCruzer said:
Good post Patrick; it would be well for some of us to read it, save it and re-read it from time to time.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your kind words. A little civility wouldn't stifle adult debate and would make for a greater chance of communicating if less effort were made to inflame the opposition. Please consider reducing the use of ad hominems. Don't attack the person, attack his premises, logic, and or conclusions. Why does this debate have to be at the level of a brawl in the gutter. Is that resorted to because those employing those tactics have no defensible position?

Now regarding evolution being intelligent design. Before anyone argues against that concept consider that to do so implies you know for a fact that God didn't use the natural laws of his own creation in the form of evolution to do his miraculous work. I pity the fools who pontificate and limit the infinite God with their limited and typically flawed interpretations.

Pat
 
   / Global Warming? #2,789  
patrick_g said:
Thank you very much for your kind words. A little civility wouldn't stifle adult debate and would make for a greater chance of communicating if less effort were made to inflame the opposition. Please consider reducing the use of ad hominems. Don't attack the person, attack his premises, logic, and or conclusions. Why does this debate have to be at the level of a brawl in the gutter. Is that resorted to because those employing those tactics have no defensible position?

Now regarding evolution being intelligent design. Before anyone argues against that concept consider that to do so implies you know for a fact that God didn't use the natural laws of his own creation in the form of evolution to do his miraculous work. I pity the fools who pontificate and limit the infinite God with their limited and typically flawed interpretations.

Pat
Click to expand...

Thank you for leading by example with civility.

It is kind of you to have pity on those who hold views different from yours. Those of us who may see things differently from you... the fools. Being "limited and typically flawed" in our interpretations. It's very hard for us to even attempt to think... at all. Thank you for your enduring patience and understanding.

Your wisdom... communicating, civilly, in attacking the opposition's position, without labeling/attacking them. A high and lofty goal.

Thank you for keeping the communication out of the gutter.
 
   / Global Warming? #2,790  
houstonscott said:
If only you would take 30 minutes and watch this you might understand the useful idiot sign around your neck.

HS
Click to expand...

Houston, I wasn't trying to dis anyone, I was just not in a position to respond to the many different posts that popped up today. I'll catch up later when I'm home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 

Footer Links 1

Top