This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
It's half an hour long lmao. Provide a transcript or a summary.
1-25 of 26
SW-User
@QuixoticSoul or take the time to educate yourself if you want to talk on such a complex topic
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@SW-User The complexity of the topic is precisely why youtube and video are such a poor way to approach it. And woefully inefficient - you can read everything he says over half an hour in five minutes or so, not to mention easily refer back to earlier info for analysis. This video age is rotting everyone's minds.
I've read quite a few books and articles on the subject over the years, and one of my degrees is in philosophy - don't think I'm new to this particular debate.
I've read quite a few books and articles on the subject over the years, and one of my degrees is in philosophy - don't think I'm new to this particular debate.
Carazaa · F
@QuixoticSoul I think You Tube is great for lectures! Especially for those who are more auditory!
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa "I think You Tube is great for lectures! Especially for those who are more auditory!"
You are right, but this happens ONLY when there are serious scientific papers formally publishing a scientific research that is SPECIFIC about what the YouTube lectures about.
Collins haves, certainly, published papers on his research.
But NO ONE behind THIS YouTube.
That makes this YouTube not a "lecture" but only propaganda.
If it´s good or bad...that´s another fish.
But not a scientific lecture.
You are right, but this happens ONLY when there are serious scientific papers formally publishing a scientific research that is SPECIFIC about what the YouTube lectures about.
Collins haves, certainly, published papers on his research.
But NO ONE behind THIS YouTube.
That makes this YouTube not a "lecture" but only propaganda.
If it´s good or bad...that´s another fish.
But not a scientific lecture.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Sorry, I took your own words for it "I think You Tube is great for lectures"
Right, he is not lecturing about Science, but about his personal faith experience. That´s good.
But, if so...
Why to mention Science matters?
To give "scientific validity" to his faith?
Not needed, he may believe even if (in strict math logic terms) is "Absurd".
And, for also the sake of honesty, neither need to make such a distortion of scientific concepts.
Doing this, he is not making a favour to Science and neither to faith.
We, then, agree, that Science is out of his speech.
My respects, Carazaa.
Right, he is not lecturing about Science, but about his personal faith experience. That´s good.
But, if so...
Why to mention Science matters?
To give "scientific validity" to his faith?
Not needed, he may believe even if (in strict math logic terms) is "Absurd".
And, for also the sake of honesty, neither need to make such a distortion of scientific concepts.
Doing this, he is not making a favour to Science and neither to faith.
We, then, agree, that Science is out of his speech.
My respects, Carazaa.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa You are right.
There are a lot of christan scientists.
And a lot of Jew scientists.
And a lot of Muslim scientists.
And a lot of Hinduist ones.
And a lot of Agnostics in science research.
And a lot of Atheists doing Science.
They work together with no clash.
They all do the same Science and, sometimes, do the same kind of mistakes.
Why?
Because Science is secular.
Can´t provide a basis for faith.
Can´t provide a refutal for faith.
But …
It can refute most of faith based asertions about the material Universe.
And should do it.
Faith arguments about Nature, if they are called "Science", are a fraud.
Which should be an ethical contraint for also christians,
"Thou shalt not bear false witness".
Well, Intelligent Design is a good example of "false witness".
There are a lot of christan scientists.
And a lot of Jew scientists.
And a lot of Muslim scientists.
And a lot of Hinduist ones.
And a lot of Agnostics in science research.
And a lot of Atheists doing Science.
They work together with no clash.
They all do the same Science and, sometimes, do the same kind of mistakes.
Why?
Because Science is secular.
Can´t provide a basis for faith.
Can´t provide a refutal for faith.
But …
It can refute most of faith based asertions about the material Universe.
And should do it.
Faith arguments about Nature, if they are called "Science", are a fraud.
Which should be an ethical contraint for also christians,
"Thou shalt not bear false witness".
Well, Intelligent Design is a good example of "false witness".
Carazaa · F
@CharlieZ You are not quoting God! Here is what God says about his creation testifying to his handiwork.
[b]
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. 2Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.…"
Psalms
Romans 1:19
"For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse."[/b]
[b]
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. 2Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.…"
Psalms
Romans 1:19
"For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse."[/b]
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Carazaa No, I was not quoting the Bible.
Beacuse you posted a scientist talking on the relationship between belief and Science, I quoted another scientist, one of the founder of Science, saying about the same.
Which is coherent.
If you read his quote carefully he said, in other words:
"When related to faith I read the Scriptures.
But the Scriptures do not give a good descrition of the material sky.
As it´s not it´s purpose.
As for knowing the material sky, I´ll "read" the material sky"
He did this, and was one of the beginers of Science.
While he was also Christian.
Do you find it to be a bad thing?
Beacuse you posted a scientist talking on the relationship between belief and Science, I quoted another scientist, one of the founder of Science, saying about the same.
Which is coherent.
If you read his quote carefully he said, in other words:
"When related to faith I read the Scriptures.
But the Scriptures do not give a good descrition of the material sky.
As it´s not it´s purpose.
As for knowing the material sky, I´ll "read" the material sky"
He did this, and was one of the beginers of Science.
While he was also Christian.
Do you find it to be a bad thing?
1-25 of 26