Re: Universes, was Re: Venus- why not a good planet to view?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:59:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
<andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There
are scientific arguments against the existence of God (which I
deliberately am not bringing up as it's OT) but these will never
be proof to those who accept their faith as axiomatic.

These can be arguments, but quite silly as man cannot be so arrogant
to actually think they have enough scientific knowledge to say that.
As I said it will take a long time for science to get nearer to any
explanations. You could say science could even hit a wall for hundreds
or thousands of years once so much has been discovered. The rest might
prove too complex for simple minded humans to figure out. That's just
a theory of course. But we can be like chimps figuring out how to get
to a banana placed in a hard to get place. They're a far cry from
figuring out the universe.

Science can also be silly sometimes. They explain certain occurences
on earth as "nature" or "mother nature", but using nature as a noun is
not scientific since scientists in no shape or form have ever detected
what specifically and literally "nature" is. Scientists can be
arrogant in the ways they seem to think they can explain everything.

This is actually science in action: Saying we just don't know
about that and maybe we should find out is at the very heart of
the discipline. Science, unlike faith, owes its very existence to
the fact that we _don't_ have all the answers.


No, I always hear "nature" has done this in documentaries and it
bothers me since scientists just throw that word out to describe all
the stuff they can't explain that goes on on Earth. They never say we
don't know exactly what "nature" is, it is something we haven't been
able to figure out yet, they just throw it out automatically so that
it explains all events on Earth.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bothered by "falsification" criteria for scence
    ... > You miss the simple fact that science is simply what scientists do. ... > is just a means of learning things about nature. ... every possible non-testable explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hammond sees the obvious
    ... Why, then, is that NOT what dictionaries (or science dictionaries) state? ... attempt to support your fraudulent claims? ... > back on the moon it will blink out of existence. ... Why is there nothing IN science, or from scientists, that supports your ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)