To paraphrase yourself.
No they are not.
Proof?
Form a coherent thought, to paraphrase is not the same as contradict, try again buddy
To paraphrase yourself.
No they are not.
Proof?
No myp you are trying to make science into more than what it is.
Journalism and publishing are not science, peer review has a place, but just because something is published doesn't make it fact.
No it doesn't.
Proof?
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.
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?
The 'At Last' one
Always refreshing when RoccoR posts. Nice to see you around again![]()
He said what I have been saying for the last fourteen pages. All be it I want as eloquent.
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.
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.
- 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
So, sometimes "proof" means that "smarter" people say so.
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.
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.
(COMMENT)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.