The unprovability of something does not make it scientifically impossible.
You didn't get it. The assumption of the existence of something based on faith is non-scientific. Therefore, religion is non-scientific, i.e. not compatible with science.
People like you think it is wrong for me to interpret scripture in light of scientific principle.
You didn't get it again. "People like me" think it is wrong to coerce texts into saying things that just aren't there.
That is a foolish opinion.
Oh, are we going down that level? OK: you are an unintelligent idiot.
it is my firm opinion that any valid belief in God will be consistent with science - any valid religion should be able to withstand that sort of scrutiny.
No religion ("valid"? ROTFL...) can be consistent with science, since God's very existence is assumed by faith, and not proven.
As of yet, I personally have not come across anything scientific that cannot be reconciled with my religious beliefs.
Sure, through convenient "reinterpretation" of $HOLY_BOOK, you can coerce $HOLY_BOOK into saying things that aren't there in the actual text, so as to make it appear "right".
That in and of itself is only a problem when people blindly follow a particular translation of their holy text rather than try to discern what the true meaning of the text was in its original language.
Are you saying that every time $HOLY_BOOK has been proven wrong by science, it was due to a translation mistake?
On an i386 system, I recommend installing the old 9.0-r48 version of the Flash plugin. It's decently stable, which is more than can be said for the latest releases.
On a 64-bit system IIRC there is a wrapper for using 32-bit plugins.
My point is; that it to call it "Dark Matter" and to be done with it leaves things rather vague.
Fact is, in science you are never "done with it". So there's nothing wrong with a general classification like "dark matter", because you can take for granted that in the future it will be dissected into more specific kinds of matter.
Just as we first had "atoms" and then discovered sub-atomic particles.
I'm not sure where to put this post, but has anyone thought about Frank Zappa as an example / counter-example? Here we have the guy who was NOT on drugs - or alcohol [...]
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't get it. The assumption of the existence of something based on faith is non-scientific. Therefore, religion is non-scientific, i.e. not compatible with science.
You didn't get it again. "People like me" think it is wrong to coerce texts into saying things that just aren't there.
Oh, are we going down that level? OK: you are an unintelligent idiot.
No, it's not.
Only because science cannot disprove the existence of $THING, it doesn't mean that $THING exists.
No religion ("valid"? ROTFL...) can be consistent with science, since God's very existence is assumed by faith, and not proven.
Sure, through convenient "reinterpretation" of $HOLY_BOOK, you can coerce $HOLY_BOOK into saying things that aren't there in the actual text, so as to make it appear "right".
Are you saying that every time $HOLY_BOOK has been proven wrong by science, it was due to a translation mistake?
I'm half kidding.
OK, now I'm worried...
On an i386 system, I recommend installing the old 9.0-r48 version of the Flash plugin. It's decently stable, which is more than can be said for the latest releases.
On a 64-bit system IIRC there is a wrapper for using 32-bit plugins.
Fact is, in science you are never "done with it". So there's nothing wrong with a general classification like "dark matter", because you can take for granted that in the future it will be dissected into more specific kinds of matter.
Just as we first had "atoms" and then discovered sub-atomic particles.
And he died at only 53. How unfair is that?