Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

No, not at all. My point is that even the things we assume are simple, and taken for granted are usually found out to be wrong. Not everything of course, but how do we know whats wrong or right? How can we rely on it so much, or even try to look at God from a scientific stand point. How do we live our lives by the scientific method?Finding God is not a scientific method, its a matter of the heart. As advanced as science is, (and that statement is relative) we still can't figure a great many things out. I am not saying we shouldn't try, we absolutly should. God gave us that ability, and desire to do it. It's a calling for many people. But just like everything in life, you can either do it in the name of God, or not.Page not found – Iowa Division of the International Association for IdentificationPoor guy spent 2 weeks in jail to prove my point not funny. You brought about a revelation with that statement. I have been using the word science in the wrong context for the last year and a half.That statement is entirly incorrect. It is science's fault. Science is human. Science is only the study of what is absolutly true and real. It's only man's best interpretation of what God created. we tend to argue in here, and many people state that science is non-biased, but that is BS, science is absolutly biased, and subject to every mistake of man, just like religion. It may not happen as much as religion, but it still exists. Science and religion, the same thing.

You're wrong you know.Science has no apriori dogma. It searches through a method which holds no biases. It is based on logic. It is not based on absolutes.Religion is the antithesis of science, by definition;Religion holds that an absolute incorruptible dogma is true, and then attempts to rule out anything that comes against that dogmaThe opposite;Science holds a tentative theory, which is held as a premise which should be supported by evidence, and attempts to falsify that theory, in order to assure and infer correctlyLiterally the opposite. And I'm sure more educated minds could explain this better than I.Infact, science is under logic and allows itself to be tested, falsified or confirmed.If you make a statement against religion, you are met with disgruntlement amongst the religious, and even hatred and intolerance of your scientific viewpoint.If I said, "let's suggest Yahweh isn't real", then the religious person would absolutely protest, as you are not protecting the fabric of the religious meme. You are threatening the belief he holds as absolutely unshakably true. Science doesn't even say anything about truth, as it is logical. Logic knows that absolutes are stumbling blocks.Here's an example of how absolutes don't work in inductive logic;If you want to say that Pete's raven is blackAll ravens are black
Pete has a raven

​

therefore Pete's raven is black.The first premise is an absolute, and can't be supported, unless you observe every raven. The first premise is religious.The correct way to say he raven is black, is to go on what you have, and forget absolutes. Thus;Every observed raven is black
Pete has a raven

​

Pete's raven is black.For reasons you might not know (or the readers), this is the difference between religion and science. You can, with evidence, if not, absolutely infer, still atleast have a justified true belief that his raven is black, as it is obviously "observed" and evidenced. Whereas the dogma of absolutes, guarantee a faulty argument.You're under slothful induction IMHO.P.s. Sorry I didn't respond to your other post adressed to me. I will respond when I can.

I disagree. Thats what we are made to believe, but lets break it down, and I will show you how it can be similar, then you will recognize, it is all from man. First off, would you agree that both science and religion are trying to either uphold the truth, or find the truth?
In other words its all about truth? That is assuming that the method itself is correct, and an absolute.Apriori dogma.
Lets define dogma.
There is the religious dogma: A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.Then there is scientific dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.We understand the religious dogma. But the scientific dogma holds some some similar methods. The scientific method is an idea: Science holds a tentative theory, which is held as a premise which should be supported by evidence, and attempts to falsify that theory, in order to assure and infer correctly.The scientific method in itself is not an absolute, so it is an idea. Mans best idea so far as to how to obtain the truth.Your description of religion:
Religion holds that an absolute incorruptible dogma is true, and then attempts to rule out anything that comes against that dogmaWho made that description anyway? I disagree with it. Jesus came to deliver us the truth. It is the truth that which we seek. The bible is mans best effort at trying to translate this truth into words, but the actual truth is the Spirit. It is that Spirit that we try to learn about, and the way we should go about it, is similar to the scientific method. You can study religon, or the bible, or pray to God your whole life, and never know everything. Same is true for science. Logic itself is a stumbling block. Logic only represents what man thinks it is. It was invented by man, therefor subject to the mistakes of man, just like religion. Religion was invented by man, and subject to the mistakes of man. I will admit that there are way more closed minded thinkers in religion, than in science. I feel that is a wrong way to be. When you close your mind, you become judgmental, specifically what Jesus said we shouldn't be.There are more people doing science correctly, than people doing religion correctly? I don't know. We are only limited to our own minds.In both cases, there is truth. In both cases we are in search of truth. In both cases we observe truth, and then try to explain it.The only way your right is if science isn't real.2 people can look at a tree, and both will see it differently, prove me wrong. You can't. Same with religon.Both religion and science are subject to man's interpretation.Listen, I understand your point perfectly, but take into consideration my point. I understand the differences you feel between science and relgion, but take a look at the similiarities. they are different on some levels, but they are the same on others, especially how they relate to us, and what we believe in.Keep in mind, that religion and God are 2 very different things.You say that absolutes are a stumbling block for logic.
I say that absolutes are a stumbling block in religion.
Would you say that there is an absolute truth about everything?
Then I say the only stumbling block is us, in both cases.

It's January.Ofcouse, even though you did state that you're not a fortune teller, post-question, rather than divulging the information precedingly, I'll give you the benefit of the meme , and assume you get "words for specific individuals" rather than specific information.You did however, say that you have the spirit of truth so you know when people are lying, but not always. Care for a test? Don't tell me; It's not right to test the Lord your God if he has to answer for some bull he's been feeding your ears. As it doesn't glorify him.Can't you see how that's a religious meme? In that;X claims Y is all-powerful.
Person B then asks person X to show the power of Y.Person X then makes a post-statement, after the fact, and excuses himself by saying it would be most wrong to ask Y to prove he has power.This is the case with every religious problem. If you say X doesn't exist, then X will send you to hell. Therefore, you are scared into believing X, and never questioning the problem of X not existing.I advise you read up on logic. There's an underlying world of logic that reveals the truth about people's actions and motives. It's truly fascinating what you can find out by means of deduction and simply improving your craftiness. I'd advise starting by watching a few episodes of Columbo as his deductions are based on real logic.I also like Jesus's logic the best. His is this;Jesus has to deal with group Y which attacks him by means of X(the law).So Jesus's technique is an excellent logic. He infact says that group Y fall short of X (the law). In essence, he uses their own doctrine against them. He attacks them because they claim perfection via the law, so he raises the game, and says that infact they haven't even understood their own law and fall way short of it. So how can they possibly attack him via X?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-07-2005 10:49 AM

I like you Riverrat. You're a nice guy and I'm enjoying our exchanges.I understand why you passionately defend. If only I could articulate why in my opinion, there are many holes in what you're saying.I'll answer your post when I can. I leave this to poor Shraff, to sort you out.

quote:

---

That's why the entire scientific method and peer-review system is designed to be a powerful, sophisticated, illogic and bias detection system.

​

Then why did we think no 2 finger prints are the same for so long?

---

Fingerprints don't make for a good example of failure in science. They were never part of science. They were part of what is called "forensic science", but the word "science" in the name does not make it science. Forensic science is more like an engineering practice that makes use of basic science discovered elsewhere.As far as I can tell, fingerprint analysis had never gone through rigorous scientific testing until quite recently. It had gone through judicial testing, with many court cases accepting the evidence as valid. But the courts relied on expert testimony from crime investigators, not on any thorough scientific investigation.It may be a black mark for forensics, but if anything it points to the value of the more thorough testing that we expect of science.

I'm so glad now that I used the qualifier, "if your meme is true". Ofcourse, that's assuming NWR's quoted meme, is true.

As has been posted previously, fingerprinting is not a good example for you to use. But in addition it also supports Schraf's point.We thought that no two fingerprints were the same because manual observation of fingerprints had shown no examples of two identical prints from different people. The argument was thst X number of prints have been examined and no two identical prints found. It never said that "we would not find two identical prints, only that so far we had not".With the advent of computers and the combinination of the many fingerprint databases into one unified database, it then became possible to make such comaprisions.Science is self correcting.When evidence is found that overturns a supposition, then science does just that. It says "What we believed was wrong and we can no longer support that belief."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can answer your post now.. Science deals more with the veracity and validity aspect. Facts.I think you refer to truth in another way. But it's simply a neutral un-biased filter. I think you confuse the absolute-aspect and religious dogma, with a paradigm. A paradigm is based on assumptions. In many cases, one evidence against a paradigm can be useless if it doesn't allow you to logically conclude that the paradigm is incorrect.This gives you a false sense, that paradigms are absolute dogmas in science. It's not true though, it's that you don't want to do away with a paradigm because of a discrepency. It would be foolish to say that a whole theory has been turned on it's head because of an inexplicable one-off evidence that doesn't support the paradigm. I think you believe this is the case. But there is no collusion of preceding dogmas. It would have been de-bunked long ago as a farce. Lol. In what way? "Oh Jesus, heal me...and if you don't, then it's my fault as I didn't pray hard enough,,,..or...erm...you're on an off day". Huh? How so? This doesn't mean anything though. Everything was invented by man that is manmade. Being "subject to the mistakes of man" is the middle term [shared].If you are saying that religion and science are the same because they share something, then this is the undistributed middle termand is a fallacious argument. Here is a funny example.Infact, scientific theories are found wrong all of the time via the very efficiency science provides. I suppose the difference is that with religion, you can have the capacity to do an incorrect thing correctly. But with science, you'd have to do a correct thing incorrectly. (Sorry for acting a a smart arse) I think to some extent you'r correct. Genuine people are after genuine truth.However, in the film The name of the Rose with Sean Connery, the religious man says; " We are here to preserve knowledge; NOT to search for knowledge ".And herein lies the problem with religious people. They don't accept any outside input as valid, depending on how reasonable they are. That's the problem isn't it? You can't prove Yahweh wrong because he's unfalsifiable. Although I admitt difficulty in understanding what you're getting at here. God is an anthropomorphic concept atleast. Even he would admitt that he, on earth, has only been referred to, religiously. Good point. I agree absolutes are stumbling blocks in religion.I don't know about your other points. As far as I know, absolutes are simply not relevant to investigation. But, we certainly have the capacity to be stumblingblocks. I'd agree with you on that score.I think you have a good point about both being man made and capable of making mistakes. It's just that so far, only science has been confirmed as being correct.

Person X cannot show the power of Y. Where does it say that?
The only power I can display is me loving you. Yes, that is wrong. You know that in your heart because God put his laws on your heart and on your mind. Haven't you been reading what I am saying?
Jesus came to save the world, not judge it. I am supposed to be like him. Well all I do all day long is trouble shoot real problems. I am an HVAC tech, and designer. The only way I can do that is through logic, and deductive reasoning. Have I ever studied logic? no, but I get it.
But sometimes, you just have to say, help me on this one God, lol Very good point. Perfect logic from the perfect person. And just what have we learned from this logic, and how can we apply it to all that we see in life?

You know its always a tag team in here. I never have it easy.

cheap cop out.Science is based on our observations, I guessed we missed that one.So just what science IS science? lol, what a joke, I'm not going to even touch this one.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 11-07-2005 07:51 PM

I think the main difference between science and religion can be explained by the wanderer approach. If you wander the world and ask a question of the laws of science, you get the same result. No exceptions. If you wander the world asking the same question of, say, Christian groups, you will get a variety of answers. Since the HG can`t be wrong, and every group claims to be Spirit-guided, what conclusions can we draw?

No. There is no cop out there.Television watching is based on observation. Eating is based on observation. Tourism is based on observation.That's a really poor description of science. Many things are based on observation. Science is skeptical observation, skeptical testing, replication of results to rule out biases, peer review. That's what was missing in the use of fingerprints. Maybe you should do a little study on this.

In other words truth. Truth is truth, it doesn't lie, or is it wrong.
Doesn't matter what we apply it to. Because it is exused from absolutes, doesn't make it un-biased. Its like saying it right because its wrong. If that were the case. Science has a long history of being incorrect. The scientific method allows to be incorrect, and that makes it right.I am only trying to point out that it is wrong, and it is, and that makes it right, but not as a guide in my life. I do apprceiate science, and I am more involved in it than you would think. Practically speaking of course. I rely on it, not live my life by it, plus I believe it all comes from God, our ability to learn these things. It makes life exciting, and adds to the test. 2 of my favorite inventions are running water, sewer, and dental floss. Don't kid yourself, it exists, absolutly 100%. If science was truely non-biased, then we would all be working towards righteous goals. But almost all science is driven by one thing, and that is money. When money is involved, then it is corrupt. Well, almost. Take a look at yourself, and how you are examining why you didn't have a religious experience.Matthew 9:22
Jesus turned and saw her. "Take heart, daughter," he said, "your faith has healed you." And the woman was healed from that moment. Because logic doesn't truely work, unless we know all the variables. You know, I am truely amazed at what the schools are teaching people these days. Undistrbuted middle term? logic? fallacious arguement? paradigm? All these little cute sayings, and senerios, that can be applied to anything to make anything true or untrue. So much clutter in ones brain, it becomes a stumbling block at actually seeing the truth.Nosy Ned once agreed with me, when I said, it is extremely difficult to be simple. He may have been making a joke, because he is so complicated, but it is true, simplicity is complicated. It's like the parable of the rich man going to heaven.Have you ever tried to write a song? Yep, I agree, as I said before, religious people are closed minded.I think the mistake most people make when looking for God, is to look at religion for God. Religon and God are 2 different things. That it is people who are the problem here, not what is true, or God.
Science and religon are both the problem, because it comes from our own minds. Science is bad you ask? We all know what bad thn=ings can be associated with religion, how about science? What bad things have come from science? Which one of the 2 has caused more death? Only for those who haven't seen him, or felt him.
A pillar of fire in the desert is a little more than a concept. How can you say that? Just look at the history of science, and all the trouble its caused, and continues to cause to this day. Science is correct, because it can be incorrect, and not be in trouble. There is no accountablilty in science. Just because the scientific method allows for mistakes, doesn't make science correct. I am talking about how it relates to what we believe in, and how we live our lives, not science itself persay.