True science, true relgion do not contradict

EVOLUTION

        It is historically inaccurate to maintain that modern science forced
the Church to come up with ideas about Genesis 1-3 that differ from the
allegedly "literal" views of Protestant Fundamentalists.  In his "De Genesi
ad Litteram Libri Duodecim" [Twelve Books on the Literal Interpretation of
Genesis] and "De Genesi contra Manichaeos Libri Duo" [Two Books on Genesis
against the Manichees], St. Augustine (354-430), Prince of the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church, gave many interpretations of Genesis that are plainly
at variance with such "literal" views.  Given that a theological thinker of
St. Augustine's genius arrived at the views that he did after years of
careful study of the text, it is incumbent upon us to approach the early
chapters of Genesis with far less dogmatism and far more humility and caution
than we often do.

        St. Augustine's interpretations should help us guard against facile
claims about the "literal" meaning of these texts.  We should recognize what
Augustine recognized: namely, the early chapters of Genesis are in fact
complex and do not tender easy, pat answers.  For example, St. Augustine
repeatedly stresses that the six days described in Genesis are not six
successive ordinary days.  They have nothing to do with time.  The days are
repeatedly claimed to be arranged according to causes, order, and logic.
  
        Pope Pius XII's Encyclical "Humani Generis" exhibits a very prudent
approach to the question of the theory of evolution, as well as all
scientific theories.  Both religion and science are founded in truth;
therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction.  He
reprimands those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES, explains
the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic
opinion that the world is in continual evolution."

        The salient point here is that the Theory of Evolution is just that,
a theory.  There may be aspects of it that are correct, and other aspects
that are not.  Even scientists do not agree on all points of the theory, and,
like all scientific theories, more and more flaws in it will be discovered as
further data are discovered.

        Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts.  For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian, the
Newtonian by the Einsteinian.  The 19th-century "Theory of Evolution" has
already been found wanting by the scientific community and is constantly
being revised as biological understanding increases.

        In history, we find that some in religion try to impose rigorously
non-dogmatic aspects of the Faith into science, as in the great debate on
heliocentrism in the 17th century.  Conversely, some scientists try to make
their "theories" contradict religious dogma.  Both approaches are incorrect.

        Here are the pertinent passages from the encyclical.

        "Thus, the teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of evolution an
open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the development,
from other living matter already in existence [not Darwin's theory of
spontaneous generation, that living matter has come from non-living matter],
of the human body.  In the present state of scientific and theological
opinion, this question may be legitimately canvassed by research, and by
discussion between experts on both sides." (Sec. 1, para. 5-7)

        "It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although
they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less
connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few
insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into
account as much as possible.  This certainly would be praiseworthy in the
case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather
question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which
the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.  If
such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be
admitted....

        "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not
forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and
sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in
both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far
as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent
and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
immediately created by God.  However this must be done in such a way that the
reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to
evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation
and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of
the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting
authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. 
Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as
if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were
already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered
up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in
the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and
caution in this question."  (Section 36)

        "There are other conjectures, about polygenism (as it is called)
[Darwin's theory that there were many Adams and Eves in the very beginning of
mankind, not just one set of First Parents], which leave the faithful no such
freedom of choice.  Christians cannot lend their support to a theory which
involves the existence, after Adam's time, of some earthly race of men, truly
so called, who were not descended ultimately from him....  It does not appear
how such views can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin."  (Sec.
3, para. 64-68)

>>39
So The Universe is Debris continually changing the singularity of time to facilitate change in possibilities? Lol, confusing, It sounds like one good answer that doesn't explain anything, but raises more questions.
Besides, all I understand about the universe is push and draw; push is the force behind the mass and draw is the force that creates a vacuum effect in its wake as both are in motion, so too becomes the mass within it. Like a leaf floating on a river; but even the leaf creates drag because of resistance through its mass and the water's mass difference. Lol, what do they teach you guys in school nowadays? "CONSOLIDATE YOUR ANSWERS INTO ONE SENTENCE. IT WILL MAKE SENSE. LOL"
Yeah, um, "Divide and conquer." -Sun Tzu
That means, unite to overwhelm; you are just trying to overwhelm people with your own rhetorical confabulations. At least I ATTEMPT to explain things a little. Meh, I can't change the world, guess I have to settle for it.

>>40
Personally, I think creationists are trying to invalidate the necessity of change and motion; hmm, doesn't that mean we should just lay down and die, yeah, go ahead and accept their answers, then lay down and die, as they would have you do. Lol, I'm off to put my atoms into motion with another girl, let's see how I can put a few billion years of evolution into action, shall we?

>>38
As you have judged me...you know the rest.

god isnt real you babies

B]

>>44 mah shades

>>44
lol, he says, "god isn't real...", but still says "god..."; I guess we should ignore him then, eh?
"He who speaketh of God in name must surely believe, for if there were no name, there would be no God; but as that man speaketh the name and say that such a thing that he himself hath spoken does not exist, then his statement is hypocrisy."

>>46

Argument holds no water. See the Tooth Fairy, Boogeyman, etc, etc.

>>46
I named the imaginary unicorn in my backyard Steve. Since I mentioned his name, he must exist!

Wait, that only applies to God? Who says? The Bible? So if I write a book about Steve, he'll exist? Why not? The Bible has zero collaborating evidence, so I shouldn't need any either, right?

Also, I couldn't find that quote in Google nor any of the online Bible sites I found. Please cite it, thanks. Not that it would make the passage any more credible, I'd just like to see if you're making shit up or not.

Relevant logical fallacies: Non sequitor, reification, appeal to authority, etc. I'm sure there's more categories as well as more specific names, but I'm just not knowledgeable enough to go much further in depth.

>>1

While I applaud the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution, it does raise a few interesting questions:

1)  Would the pope have recognized evolution's veracity if the majority of Europeans (a substantial bulk of the Catholic Church's congregation/revenue) not accepted evolution first?

2)  Can original sin still exist if Adam and Eve never existed?  After all, the core of the Catholic dogma has been that a) Adam and Eve introduced original sin, b) Jesus came to erase the damages of original sin, c) we need Jesus to escape original sin, and subsequently hell.

>>47
>>48
The belief of these things by name is actually a CONFIRMATION of what resides within the mind which spoke the name. By saying you don't believe in God, Santa, Easter bunny, etc, etc, it's tantamount to saying that what resides within your mind doesn't exist; in a sense, you are asking others to ignore you, to segregate you so you may be alone, to die of shame. And what resides within your mind at this moment of reading this final point; denial, not consideration. By negating what another person believes is negating who they are and what resides within their minds. And what do you do at this point; denial, not consideration. Think about it or not; that choice I leave to you being a fellow human being. And since I am here to serve my fellow man; therefore I must be a liar or hypocrite or both. Again, whatever you believe, I will back your belief. Afterall, I can only change myself, not other people. Can you say the same?

>>50
>The belief of these things by name is actually a CONFIRMATION of what resides within the mind which spoke the name. By saying you don't believe in God, Santa, Easter bunny, etc, etc, it's tantamount to saying that what resides within your mind doesn't exist
>resides within mind
>exist

Confirmation doesn't imply an ontology based in the physical world. Santa, Easter Bunny,  etc, "exist" in a fictional sense, yet do not "exist" in the sense of them having a physical ontology. The duality in your use of "resides"/"exist" is convenient, but not consistent.

>And what resides within your mind at this moment of reading this final point; denial, not consideration.

Your assumption that I am not considering your argument is tantamount to saying that your perception of my capacity to consider (a perception that resides within your mind) doesn't exist; in a sense, you are asking others to ignore you, to segregate you so you may be alone, to die of shame. By negating the capacities of another person is negating who they are and what resides within their minds. Think about it or not; that choice I leave to you being a fellow human being. And since I am here to serve my fellow man; therefore I must be a liar or hypocrite or both. Again, whatever you believe, I will back your belief. Afterall, I can only change myself, not other people. Can you say the same?


Meh. In all likelihood I'm debating philosophy with a bot on 4chan.

>>49

Regarding the first question, it seems to me this concession (accepting evolution) was predicated largely by the external factors that made the Vatican II necessary. Without these factors, I doubt that the Church would embrace evolution. With the Tree of Knowledge and its Fruit antagonized throughout scripture, it is understandable that the Church would be hesitant, to say the least, in adopting new theories. The question of the Tree of Knowledge and its modern analogue, Science, has unfortunately created a tension that has enshrouded the minds of many a theologian and scientist and pitted them against one another.

<a href="http://www.buyaionmoney.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.buyaionmoney.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-money.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-money.com">aion money</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-aiongold.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.aiongold-aiongold.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.rs2accounts-rs2accounts.com">runescape gold</a>
<a href="http://www.rs2accounts-rs2accounts.com">runescape money</a>
<a href="http://www.aionkina-aionkina.com">aion kina</a>
<a href="http://www.aionkina-aionkina.com">aion gold</a>
<a href="http://www.benniuw.com">股票软件</a>
<a href="http://www.benniuw.com">股票分析软件</a>

>>51
sorry, you just lost the game. So basically what you are saying is, unspoken thoughts, assumptions, belief, and speculation are non-existent to you in the real world? Surely, even quantum physics would state rather that our universe cannot exist without including the human mind. Not to mention historical retrospection. Remember one thing, if anything, human actions are based upon these very aspects; if you deny the prior, explain the latter? How can God not exist; yet people are actually capable of doing good deeds to serve his fellow man. What are your denials on this?

>>54
If you give a bum $100, and he gets stabbed for it by another bum, can you admit you did something wrong?  Or is innocent guilt a "white sin"?

>>54

The problem is, you really need to be able to have the creator handy to say he exists. Believing in something that is not there is a good description of our current economic crisis.

>>56
Actually, it is because we thought we had it that it is no longer there.
If you want to become an engineer, you must first BELIEVE you are capable of being an engineer, amirite? You visualize yourself in the job, you visit sites and see the type of work engineers do, etc, etc. Then you go to school and find out that some of what you are learning is test-taking, communication, listening, intense brainstorming to accomplish these tasks just to become an engineer. But the first thing to remember, you are not an engineer...yet. Only your ACTIONS bring you to this state, and those are from choice, which resides within your mind, of course, you have to believe in choice and belief in order to accomplish these things. Otherwise, you are just ignoring another part of yourself and making it so much more difficult to have pre-determined common ground with other people so you can communicate and listen more effectively...but, it's all relative to who you are now. Now do you believe me?
If you are still struggling with this, there is some research materials based on Alpha and Beta Male/Female thinking;
The beta male believes he is an alpha, therefore he need not take the actions of becoming an alpha, therefore he degrades himself to a beta by his own actions.
The alpha believes he is a beta, but wants to become an alpha and strives with every action to obtain this the rest of his life believing he will never attain that status until he is dead.
It's up to you to decide what is true or not; the best way I've found? I had to look for myself, just believing it without research is pointless; like putting a seed in the dirt and hoping it will bare fruit later. Without tentative care and due diligence, there most likely will be no fruit. And yes, that is a parabole.
And as for God being handy, interesting thing that you mention a "hand". The path of God is the path of least resistance throughout everything. There are some other aspects, but I won't post them here; you'll have to find those out all on your own. "THINK PRACTICALLY, NOT RATIONALLY."
Also, some words of pre-direction,
"Satan reasons like a man, but God thinks of eternity." Turn this paradox into an axiom, put it to the test, observe, and record your results. Mine? Satan resides only within human minds, God exists throughout everything. What do you think?

>>55
Yes, I led another into temptation. The choice was "to tempt" the antithesis is "not to tempt". The only reason this would be different is because of the intended outcome; if it is death, "not to tempt", if it is joy, "to tempt". There is nothing wrong with tempting someone or something into feeling and expressing joy. Though, for some, that may be difficult to witness and difficult to allow in others if it is lacking within themselves. How am I doing so far?

>>56
btw, there is a difference between the economy and God; that is motion. God is self-sustaining regardless of our actions, the economy's existence is dependent upon it. Amirite?

>>57


What?  No, you just learn how engineering works, you don't imagine anything about being an engineer. I guess to be a good christian, or worshiper of any version of G.O.D. be it ver 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0., is <sparkly rainbow> \|/IMAGINATION\|/!  You don't play these pretend games with engineering, unless you're still a child.

>>58

You failed. 

Instead of observing the results of your actions, you made it about a sin instead.

>>59

You still need to prove there is a God, to say there is a God.

Saying there is an economy is like saying that running exists.

They're both actions, not nouns.

Noun God, verb God, or adjective God, you cannot prove he exists.

>>62
Prove to me that what you think exists. Please show us direct proof that you have thoughts and how they work. Please do try. And I'm not talking about remnants of it via actions, expressions, reactions, I mean the action of your own thoughts precisely. You see, words, actions, and any other reaction is merely a remnant of a thought, I take this on faith, you take it for granted, the source is your brain. But please explain Self-Awareness and how it works. Please do try. It took me one year, after 7 years of the same procrastination you are displaying here. And no, I don't have to show my work; do the work yourself if you really want to know. You want my work, fine, $9,999.99 plus s/h and I'll ship you my box of notes and experiments with the resulting philosophical assumptions to proceed in any direction towards self-awareness.
And you are confusing the issue by misdirecting away from the parabole and towards some inane idea of possible contradiction. There is a paradox in everything, but you only see one side of the issue, and disregard the other believing it doesn't exist; surely something you don't know or haven't heard about can't possibly exist. God to me is that which exists outside of awareness, using awareness to perceive itself. How I came to that, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Slackers.

>>63

There is no proof.  You too, are a chinaman in a box. As such, your instinctive replies from your broken gray matter are meaningless, along with what you pretend about faith.

>>64
orly? It is my nature to waste time and accomplish nothing. Can you really say that what I am doing is meaningless? Nope, just doing what comes naturally to me. Let's say I want to be courageous then. Okay, next I have to fear what I do naturally so that it is always on my mind; but this is not good enough. Next, I need to use Free-Will to do what needs to be done even though I don't feel like doing anything different. In doing this I actually surpass my own self-induced fear and am able to manage time in order to accomplish something. The jist of this is, this procedure for me does not end with the single instance; man afterall is a creature of habit. Oh, did you think the God I was referring to was some figment of my imagination? Lol, that's something a child would believe. Fortunately, all my uses for everything within my faith HAS TO have a practical use otherwise, it is just something to throw into the burn barrel; at least there it is being put to use by keeping me warm for a moment. Oh, and please take me lightly, I wouldn't want you to have a heart attack and die before we actually meet on the street, of course that would entail you leaving your mom's basement...dun dun dun dun, the unknown...do not want, lol. Everytime I explore the unknown, it's like getting a chance to know God better. It's as simple as that. Think of God as everything just as Dog is to german shepard, poodle, Pomeranian, etc, etc. What do you all the tree that branches out to all the different species? The Animal Kingdom. Well, God would still be higher than that title. Besides, if you really want to understand what God is, which I don't think anyone who does't like to explore the unknown would even consider it, you have to look for God in strange places. God works much like a river works, flowing downstream taking whatever refuse happens to fall into it to the ocean to be swallowed up; and that's just one aspect. Try contemplating everything into that equation. Let me guess "E"? Lol. Yeah, it usually ends up that way. I just look at it from the simple point of view, whatever is just outside my range of perception, God is just around the corner; always. Besides, that thing about God judging us, that is mostly about other people, people judge, people kill, people take revenge, people get angry. That aspect of God is self-awareness in every human being. The devil within every human is their ego which drives their blind acts of self-preservation. C'mon, do some homework, what could you possibly be afraid of? What is the worst that could happen? You actually CHOOSE to change your own mind for a change? Ooooh, scary, do not want, amirite?

>>What do you *all* the tree that branches out to all the different species? The Animal Kingdom.

*call*, lol, I'm such a ham. :P Yeah, being human means sinning...I mean making mistakes. Until next time, have a fantastic future.

FYI, hatred and anger is a response to not being able to change something yourself. The energy is potential energy building up to use force to overwhelm the inability which usually ends in tragedy. Lol. What a goofy way to express one's self, out of blind rage. I can pictuer it now, someone putting their fingers in their head like bull horns and charging in head first. AHAHAHAHA XD

>>66

\/\/hatever.

Here is why most people get the Scientific method backwards.

“I looked under a rock for a bug, but the bug was not there; I believed it was there until I proved it didn’t exist.”

All of perception is a relative perception, possibly thought of as an absolute perception. This is where mistakes begin to creep into our rational thinking.

All of existence has its paradox for every part within it as well as it's own being. What does this mean to us? It means water can both quench a man's thirst or drown him; everything has the potential for life or death at the same time. Two sides to the same coin. God would be the coin; perception would be the heads and tails of that coin (of existence). Does that make sense?

So how do we use this paradox to figure things out for ourselves? We turn what we know of it into an axiom (to state it as truth until proven otherwise). This is how we utilize scientific method to prove WHAT HAPPENS (not so much whether it is or isn't) in the instance of observance. In this, it is pertinent to be unbiased (to not judge or have preconceptions of the outcome so the observation itself takes priority). Extroverts are very handy in this case.

Once the observation is made and the data collected objectively, then we sit down to write down our thoughts, our feelings about the findings we collected and what we would like to do with them next; how do we use this for practical purposes?

So really? How can someone prove the existence of God if he hasn't been proven that God doesn't exist or even if God is working his magic right now as you are reading this last line?
It is a natural thing to exclude one's self from a common way of thinking, it is a fool's errand to not try something new and repeat the same thing over and over even though it ends in failure, it's a waste of his own time; would you waste your time listening to him for an extended period? It is an ignorant choice to say something doesn't exist even though it has yet to be observed. It may not be TRUE, but the possibility will always exist until proven otherwise, or ignored and forgotten. There is no interim between awareness and ignorance is there?

In awareness lies the possibility, pursuing the possibility means pursuing the revelation regardless of the unknown and ignorance; you do it because you want to believe it works or it exists. So what is the choice in this? Life and death are your options; To live or not to live, to die or not to die. Those that believe in an interim of this I call, "Fence-sitters." These people like to watch over their fence of safety to assure that anything that comes by is to their liking BEFORE they find out what it is. This is why most people that go to shopping markets appreciate a clean, good looking, well-stocked and faced shelves with beautiful ads and labels to look at. It's the appearance of things they want. That which they don't want, they ignore. It's everywhere. It's indoctrination and mostly due to ignorance, feigning ignorance breeding and teaching their children the same; the blind leading the blind. People are not ignorant because of who they are; it was a choice they made when they were a child to adapt into their environments. It's a coping mechanism that allows a decrease in conflict with parents, teachers, classmates, co-workers, etc. When we integrate this choice into everything we do; we become arrogant and think we know it all. It is true to me, because it happened to me. Whether someone else says it's false only means it is false to them. This is the proper way of viewing perceptions and opinions.

Does God exist to me, YES. Does God exist in your mind? Well, if you are reading this, then the word 'God' now exists in your vernacular. What are you going to do about that possibility that lies within your awareness? Are you going to feign ignorance until you forget it or are you going to investigate it until you discover your own personal relative truths about it? The choice is always up to you; the illusion that it is not is always the remnants of the ignorant. If choice doesn't exist as a belief in their mind, then they will leave choice or the assumption of choice up to others as their authority instead of their own minds. This usually always ends in depression or violence. So I ask you, if you don't believe in God, if he truly does not exist; show me the proof of your findings. Otherwise, I will continue to believe in the possibility. I am aware of the possibility because the word 'God' came into my perception and is a continual discussion throughout the world. It means my visualization of what God is and how God works is always changing and mutating into something new and different, sometimes perverted, but interesting and provocative to say the least. It's awesome to believe in something that we have no proof of, but the journey to find out is well worth the belief of possibilities. That is my faith. Should you follow it as though it is the only one or the right one? No, of course not, I would never expect anyone to do something so foolish. All I am doing is expressing myself and how I feel; I'm sure some of you would like to do the same, that's why you're here, amirite? So take it as you would a new dish at dinner. You don't just shove it into your mouth, right? You stir it first, smell it to see if it is enticing, you feel it with your lips as it is about to enter your mouth for heat or cold and whether it is to your liking, and finally a little touches your tongue and you begin to collect more feelings on whether it is to your liking or not. Little steps will take you to your destination. Remember, the tortoise and the hare. Slow it down to speed it up. Even though the rabbit was faster, he had took long breaks because he was cocky and arrogant and thought he could do it. The tortoise took his time and gradually finished first because he paced himself. He only took the steps he was capable of taking and never exceeded himself except in his accomplishment. Does that make sense? You don't have to change who you are? But the possibility exists should you choose to do so. That's why there are so many people on this planet. If one person has a myriad of possibilities floating within their mind at any given time and expressing only one of them every moment, multiply that times the number of people on the planet, how many things could you learn in your near 100 years of learning if you continued to learn throughout that time period? What would be the ultimate goal? Not that you obtained what you were looking for, but that you took the journey in stride. You performed as you would have throughout and didn't set yourself up to fail by setting the bar too high. I set mine pretty low; just waking up in the morning on time. Start out as simple as you can and you will succeed in no time at all. You will be amazed at this accomplishment YOU YOURSELF have made. And what was it due to? My words alone? No. Your actions played a part, the greatest part I would say. Without action, no reaction would have occurred. It is what we find throughout life that allows us to take advantage of the opportunities that are granted to us daily. If you perceived everything as an opportunity, you would turn everything towards your advantage without fail; it would be instinctual, it would be your habit.
So how do we do this without the resistance of emotional and physical drawl? Everything within your body is a tool to turn to your advantage. You are capable of fear, use it. Find something you want, fear not having it (this keeps it in your mind), pursue the possibility of obtaining it diligently and it will be yours in seemingly no time at all. In pursuing the possibilities of what we want, we not only obtain our desire, but we obtain the courage to do so. Now what happens if we do this with everything? Humans are a creature of habit, amirite? Since we are capable of habits, how can we use those to our advantage? Do you see where I'm going with this? The downside to this is things that bring you down. If something brings you down, it is in your best interest to bring yourself back up. Laughter is one of the greatest tools we have to bring our spirits up. Even if we laugh at our own ridiculousness of existence. We have a hole that excretes fecal matter on a near-daily basis and a hole that squirts urine for Christ's sake! It's ridiculous! It's funny. Find what makes you laugh about your situation and you will turn your life around if you then pursue the cause of your depression. This is just a little bit of wisdom from '48 ways to wisdom' by Rabbi Noah Weinberg as well as some personal research I've discovered on my own through other's due diligence and reports. Wikipedia is a great source of possibilities to pursue, dictionary.com helps with definition, although defining a word using the word is sort of moot, amirite? srsly. Even these forums that we read and type within, what do we all accomplish by texting and reading these posts? Does it make us angry? Does it make us laugh? What? It might be the change in mood you are looking for. The change in atmosphere. Now this is just a possibility, mind you, of what your purpose for this is, mine is simply to waste time and accomplish nothing. Seeings that my belief states that I am a fool, it is within my nature to act foolish. It is my duty to overcome my nature because it is what I have chosen. If I do not, then the choice has changed to not overcome my nature, does that make sense? A choice is always made, what was it? Think on very simplistic terms. If you look for a job some days and don't some days; there were two-different choices made then. That goes against the flow of human habits and therefore you are fighting your biology and resisting something that is greater than yourself. "That which you resist persists" means if you resist it, it will overwhelm you. If you resist sleep, sleep will overwhelm you. It's that simple. Remember, it's up to you what you want to do in your life, to be or not to be; that's the most important question you'll ever come across.

>>68

You're not describing the scientific method, you're describing the religious reasoning method.

>>69

Unicorns, fairies, dragons and magic.

>>69
tl;dr

>>70 + >>71
ts;dr

>>72

\/\/hatever.  If you want to think that your thoughts somehow make things real, go for it.  Be batshit insane.

>>70
Oh...hahahaha...lol. I bet you think the scientific method is like other countries where they practice the reverse of America where the accused is guilty until proven innocent, amirite? Or in the American justice system where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. What do you think, /sci/?
Honestly, I think it is more neutral than that even. It is more like, if the possibility exists via awareness of anyone (especially speculation, conjecture, or postulation), pursue it, what is observed is recorded and the result of the observation. There is no "exist vs not exist" in the axiomatic summary of scientific method unless someone was specifically looking for it. It would be by happenstance rather than intended proposal that any such evidence exist. The observation would simply show a lack of or support of evidence rather than proof of "exist or not exist" if anything.
What does /sci/ think about this?

>>73
...and thank you for noticing me, I sure shall from now on, and with your blessing no less, a-thank you, a-thank you!

Well, it seems that my answers quelled some people's curiosities. Damn, am I the discussion killer or what, amirite?

>>75


You're a troll, and a lousy one at that.  If you were good at being a troll, you could of killed the thread with one post. Go to /v/, they will teach you how trollan is done.

Posting what you actually believe is not trollan, it's being a namefag, you double namefag.

There is no God as you imagine the concept, your philosophical reasoning is shoddy, and you have not the basic understanding of human emotion required to bring threads to their knees. Perhaps most retarded of all, after you do kill a thread, you bump it for some kind of desperate acknowledgment of your trollan, which completely defeats the purpose of trollan in the first place.

You fail at life.

>>75

Just the cancer killing /sci/.

>>76
>>77
I knew if I electrified the ground the worms would come out. Now it's time to go fishing.

>>76, you state there is no God, yet you can offer me nor anyone else any viable proof corroborating your allegation. To this, your accusation of my philosophical reasoning being shoddy as well as "have not the basic understanding of human emotion" is baseless, groundless, and lacks any resemblance of a creative foundation sturdy enough to hold any facts except one final thing.
You are the one who has no God to imagine within a concept. Your philosophical reasoning is shoddy. You lack the basic understanding of human emotion required. And perhaps most retarded of all, I have to be the one person who tells you to grow the fuck up, pop your mom's titty out of your mouth, and stop being such a cry baby. Your past pains are nothing, but you make them into something; this is what blinds you from any truths that just pass you by daily as you ignore them thinking, no...believing you KNOW what you are talking about when you don't even realize what words are coming out of your mouth let alone their meanings. The God that exists within your mind is nothing more than a wild-eyed geezer with a thin thong and spandex with flimsy boots and a cape, so you think of him as "not real". Then prove to me this, if you just imagined this image within your mind, prove to anyone else even me that you did in fact imagine it. Oh...I see...you can't...cause you don't believe he exists. My friend, you just denied your own imagination and that of your peers; the world will be well rid of you when you are gone. Do the world a favor and do not breed. Become homosexual and at least you won't die alone...oh wait, I forgot, everyone dies alone...lol. :P

"Both religion and science are founded in truth"

Religion is the study of the what is by definition, unknowable. Science is the study of the natural universe.

"therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction."
Uh, yes they can. Religion trying to enter the realm of science is a contradiction of itself. You cannot know if your religion is or is not correct, the predicate can only be answered in death(for Christian/Islamic religions). That is not something founded on truth that is making a unchallengeable guess.

"WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES"
What aspects haven't found evidence supporting it? Please, enlighten me. Remember proof only occurs in pure mathematics.

"explains the origin of all this", No it bloody well doesn't it explains the diversity of life and how it came to be.

"The salient point here is that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory"
Yeah it's a theory, can we stop arguing now for you just admitted it to being the highest form of truth possible in science. Oh and laws are completely different to theories, the theory of gravity is all matter attracts matter. The law of gravity is F = Gm1m2/r

"Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts"
It's a self correcting process, it's kind of like Newtons approximation. No scientist has ever said they have set in stone facts, everything in science is a guess. But let me tell you they're bloody good at guessing.

I'm a Quaker. Maybe one day you'll learn that revelations cannot be handed down to others and that they're deeply personal connections between yourself and your god.

Religion and science are a contradiction in and of themselves just as the people who practice it.
>>79
I created my own religion not as an exclusive stand-alone, but rather an inclusive "shell" religion that requires research, observation, recording results and putting the results into a practical working application. The idea for it is based on self-change, self-awareness, choice, faith, belief, free-will, turning every disadvantage into an advantage, and utilizing all forms of energy (in motion) to my advantage by putting the path of least resistance or the target where I want it, God takes care of the rest (through motion). :)
My beliefs are founded on the premise that I am wrong, my religion is wrong, the only way to prove them right is to use them. It's entirely faith-based (pursuing possibilities) using scientific method and some other useful research tips. The "shell" religion is up for change at any given moment just as I change. It's a relative-to-person religion, though it incorporates integration into the populace for adaptation and self-growth while acquiring common-grounds for communication, cooperation, attention, and even affection. Finally, where my "shell" really works for me, it doesn't exclude the biology of the human condition, it strives to work with it and help it grow. The "shell" is meant to serve its practitioner, not be an authority over it. And because it is the practitioner that utilizes it, the practitioner is in complete control of his/her destiny. It's relatively simple, effective, and incorporates the best of all religions, philosophies, sciences, and so forth. Life's about learning, not knowing the answer; so this "shell" exists to propose more questions to seek these answers.
That's pretty much the proposal for my "shell" religion.