Indeed it isn't.

but it is retarded to believe anything a paedo **** in a white dress tells you

 

Indeed. It depends what you think of as "authoritative". If you're happy to be guided by the official Oxford English Dictionary, as most people are, then peoples very clearly isn't listed. Because, basically, peoples doesn't convey any extra meaning that people can provide. There's no need for the word.

 

Science can be turned towards depraved ends. The ***** used scientific methods to exterminate Jews.

 

Who wasn't being nasty in the middle-ages?

It was a time of great turmoil.

Atheism is hardly a paragon of virtue either by necessity. Look at the Soviets.

 

TDW,
So what do YOU deem to be the truth of how the universe came to be? A straight and concise answer if you please.

 

I agree people should make their own minds up. The RC church is probably the least relevant of the great religions IMO

I would add that it's also retarded to believe that the Pope is a paedo and a ****!

 

Fail! The Jews were not killed in the name of science. There deaths were not caused by science. Not even scientific methods.

You seem to be unable to grasp this. Shooting someone or gassing them is not killing them with science. It is not even a 'scientific method'.

It's simply killing them. 'Science' gave us the ability to forge metal, does this mean that you are now going to bleme the slaughter in the crusades on science?

Geezer

 

I'm not blaming science just saying in can be incorporated into any moral system.

 

Saw this and thought of you guys....

 

WRONG!

It was horribly scientific. The composition of the gas was carefully developed to enable ruthless efficiency. Amongst other parameters, the molecules were specifically engineered by scientists to be slightly heavier than air. That way, once the glass pellets were thrown into the large chambers, and the gas slowly mixed with the air, people would fall...and those still surviving would crawl on top of them to escape the gas...if only fleetingly.
Why do this? The clean-up was much easier, since the dead were arranged in nice tidy piles, instead of just dropping dead all over the floor.

The entire process of "concentration camps", was setup to ensure running them would return a profit. Scientists, again, were used to calculate just how slowly you can starve people, while still have them fit enough to work.

THIS however, doesn't mean that science itself is responsible for the actions carried out, but it does illustrate that the methods were scientific.

 

Agreed. If someone is hacked to death with a protractor or stabbed to death with a fractional-distillation apparatus or brained with a PC it is no more "scientific" than being beaten to death with a font is a "religious" killing.

I maintain that T. de W. is nothing more than a troll. In thread after thread all he does is adopt the unpopular or contrary position, the more indefensible the better. On top of this, time and time again, he contravenes Godwin's law by bringing the ***** into the discussion. It might make for lengthy exchanges, but they're always irritating and never enlightening.

 

Back on the original topic:

Off course science can explain the known universe. It was all created in man's mind, according to man's rules/laws.

The universe was not created by God. Therefore it doesn't take anything devine to explain it.


Notice how that view tidily avoids the "If God created the world, why is there so much suffering?" question? God didn't create the world. We did, folks! Hence, it's not perfect...and it also abides by our own laws of nature/physics.

Hawking is correct, but he has missed the fact that God is not part of this world.

 

Oh well now that you've put it that way, thanks for clearing it up so conclusively. 20 pages later and these are the sort of posts we are still getting?

 

WTF?! The laws of nature weren't created by us ... they've been around since Time Began so precede Man by a few billion years

TX.

 

"Time" began, when our collective mind created the universe. Our human bodies came later, through evolution.

 

Well, I cannot say that I believe in the Christian God, so whilst I do have a theoretical reply, I don't feel entitled to answer. In fact, I don't believe in any of the Gods of human religions.

However, I do have a question for you:

Do you "believe" light moves as waves, or as particles?

Scientists can't agree on one theory to explain how light propagates. Does that mean that if you elect to chose the particle theory, you must renounce the wave-believers?

And indeed, ignore completely the "double-slit" experiment?

 

Once sentence, out of thread, guys and gals, may I just say that I find this discussion very interesting!

Funny how so many religious people, and so many scientists just cannot fathom how the other half thinks.


My father held a Masters Degree in Science, his major was in atomic physics. He took part in the development of the first computer, here in Denmark...that was 1956!

Anyhoo, he also believed in re-incarnation, and was extremely accurate with Astrology - a science to some.

No doubt, this has influenced me, and like some of the other members in this thread, I don't see why science and God are mutually exclusive.

 

I thought the British built Colossus was the first computer circa 1943 ?

 

Of course they can mutually co-exist.
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/03/04/the-pope-gets-an-ipod/

 

someone delete this please!

 

Why?

 

Because it is sinful.

 

I'm saying that science can be turned towards any moral ends, it is value free in itself. Science is not a morality.

I'm not blaming science for **** genocides, that is not the point. The point is you won't find values and morality in science. You can't look to science to tell you what is right and wrong or how you should behave. Idealism is never the world as it is.

Some people adopt a 'scientistic idealism' which attempts to find hyper-rational 'values' and says science is the answer to all problems. It's almost as dumb as religious fundamentalism.

 

Tony what do you do that has you up at 03.19?

 

Playing WOW.

 

Quantum Mechanics just passed you by, didn't it? Can I suggest that you do some reading on the subject because it answers those questions. But in a nutshell: light travels in the form of wave quanta, which can act as waves and/or particles. There's a good explanation of Young's Slits in Richard Feinman's Six Easy Pieces.


M

 

Well at least the Pope, Paedo's, ***** & Retards all exist.

Half the **** the Pope blurts out to his sheep is fairy tales

and btw the only people who cover up for paedos is other paedos and their mothers.

And unless the Pope is the Virgin fecking Mary - then he's a fecking paedo.

Agreed - he may not be a ****

 

You have made the obvious point which so few people are prepared to accept. That may well be because it does not suit their argument of course!

Les

 

The ***** were scientifically very advanced in the killing of children with rifle butts, and the herding of vast numbers of people into gas chambers.

Les

 

Aye....bad wording...1956 was the first computer in Denmark...not the world :-)