Form a coherent thought, to paraphrase is not the same as contradict, try again buddy
Form a coherent thought, to paraphrase is not the same as contradict, try again buddy
I never said anything about journalism, so I have no idea why you are talking about that. Publishing is integral to science and peer review is the process through which one gets published. And of course something published isn't necessarily fact, but that is besides the point.
Either way, go to any physics or chemistry department at a large university and talk about how peer review isn't that important or how you can believe in an experiment outcome or how you can pick and choose what facts-based questions to apply science to and you will be laughed out of the building. I end with that.
A paraphrase (/ˈpærəfreɪz/) is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words. The term itself is derived via Latin paraphrasis from Greek παράφρασις, meaning "additional manner of expression". The act of paraphrasing is also called "paraphrasis".
I suggest if you attempt to insult or belittle, you do so in such a way that does not make you seem a fool.
No out isn't necessary to be published, aside from ego stroking, proof is proof no matter who agrees.
Physics and chemistry labs view publishing and peer review as important because out is necessary to form theories. And also that their work gets validation through journalism. So of course they will say it is necassary. But that is a sign of existential angst, I don't need the approval of my peers to know something.
If you are insulted by that, I am sorry, but you didn't paraphrase, you contradicted
Clax...please read the last few posts in the other thread regarding scientific proof.
Once that is mentioned there is no way out...its like Hotel California..you can check out but never leave
Perhaps going back to the basic topic here could stop the disparaging remarks?
Once that is mentioned there is no way out...its like Hotel California..you can check out but never leave
Perhaps going back to the basic topic here could stop the disparaging remarks?
Clax...please read the last few posts in the other thread regarding scientific proof.
Once that is mentioned there is no way out...its like Hotel California..you can check out but never leave
Perhaps going back to the basic topic here could stop the disparaging remarks?
I don't know that thread
et al,
The study of "GOD" (or a Supreme Being) is an intellectual pursuit into the supernatural.
The study of "Science" (the physical nature of the Universe) is an intellectual pursuit into the natural.
These are not studies in conflict.
Science and Theology are not competing perspectives, nor conflicting approaches. They are entirely independent lines of study; that may converge as some point.
Most Respectfully,
R
The study of "GOD" (or a Supreme Being) is an intellectual pursuit into the supernatural.
The study of "Science" (the physical nature of the Universe) is an intellectual pursuit into the natural.
These are not studies in conflict.
- Theology in the supernatural has, within it, evidence that is based on personal and prophetic testimony of religious experiences, holy scriptures, miracles, and spiritual revelation. Belief inspires the foundation and the religious principles.
- Science is the questioning (opposite of belief) of the natural world. It involves the research into a question on nature, the generation of a hypothesis, experimentation on the premises within the hypothetical, analysis of the observable results, and drawing conclusions. It is the systematic establishment of evidence that is verifiable and reproducible.
Science and Theology are not competing perspectives, nor conflicting approaches. They are entirely independent lines of study; that may converge as some point.
Most Respectfully,
R
Actually, no. He agreed on my point that if you are looking at it scientifically, you can't believe - a point that you denied. But as I said, I am done with you here and I am not going to argue about what Rocco's post said either.
Very nice post Rocco! I don't agree with it's core premise, but I really love the way you present it.
Science doesn't recognize anything "existing" outside the space-time continuum. It also operates on the premise that everything that does exist must be definable. There is currently no room in that premise that allows for "supernatural".
The two ideas are therefore in "direct opposition" to each other. And they are not compatible. I'm not trying to say that the supernatural does or doesn't exist. I'm saying one is correct, and one is not.
Some people trust science to be the truth, and some trust belief.
Well...depends on 'smarter'.
Well, smarter, is a relative term. I find it extremely arrogant of some people to assume I don't understand things based on my particular out look, but the problem with arrogance is it isn't perceived by the people suffering from it.
I apologize if my comments seem to be arrogant or debasing. I will however point out the failure to understand a topic in most cases. In this case it is not an assumption, as your comments have left little room for any opinion other than a misunderstanding of the scientific method, with the "peer review" issue placing the final nail.
It is not a matter of who is smarter, who's Dad is Bigger, or what opinion carries more weight...this is a simple case of not knowing how things work.
Zoomer, clax, myp, et al,
PREFACE: You can believe in the "supernatural" and still be a scientist that studies the fundamental forces of nature. You just cannot use "belief" as proof or evidence.
I can be a scientist that promotes the knowledge gained through the studies of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; and all we've learned up to 10^(-43) seconds before the "Big Band" (the Cosmological Inflation of the Universe). But there is no science (yet) that can explain (even remotely) where the original energy came from to start "the beginning."
The "Hand of God" has just as much validity as "String Theory."
Most Respectfully
R
PREFACE: You can believe in the "supernatural" and still be a scientist that studies the fundamental forces of nature. You just cannot use "belief" as proof or evidence.
(COMMENT)
I can be a scientist that promotes the knowledge gained through the studies of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; and all we've learned up to 10^(-43) seconds before the "Big Band" (the Cosmological Inflation of the Universe). But there is no science (yet) that can explain (even remotely) where the original energy came from to start "the beginning."
The "Hand of God" has just as much validity as "String Theory."
Most Respectfully
R
Last edited:
Similar threads
