Of course it isn't used by natural science. It's historical analysis. Might as well ask to test hypotheses over who Jack the Ripper actually was.

No, I am explaining to you the meaning of words. You cannot just throwabout words willy nilly and expect anyone to take you seriously. You have to use them within their actual meaning, not how you'd like them to mean.



Too many hits on the football field for you rmind to comprehend what I'm saying? Look, here's an example for you:
The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

Swag, Do you like arguing every point?

All that we are doing is telling you our beliefs......there is no need to call them (or us) obtuse or any of the other interesting words in your vocabulary.

I agree it is historical analysis. I was responding to your statement, "Now, religion can be proven in the same sense that any of those can be proven using basic logic and historical facts."

I think you were referring to a list of things Swang posted including, "the list of scientific facts that were verified and proofed to develop the atomic bomb." The science of the atomic bomb was developed by a very different method than that used for religion and historical analysis.

You just don't have any idea what you are talking about. You're not explaining anything? You're basically having an argument with yourself. You are splitting hairs and, manipulating ideas to fit a discussion, which at this point isn't even with me anymore...it's like you are arguing with an imaginary person or something.

The sky is blue. Fact.
The sky is blue because of the refractation of the sunlight. Theory which explains the fact.

I cannot believe you just wrote that.

....this is ridiculous..

I'm not splitting hairs at all. While I know you consider it an unpleasant fact, words really do have meanings, and it is essential that you use them according to their meaning. I'm still waiting for you to explain how I'm going against the dictionary definition btw.



I agree. You're taking way too long to understand this.

[edited by adminiatrator]who cannot and will not allow himself/herself to admit that there is such a thing as scientific truth for fear that this will contradict their religious beliefs...please take note. (Do I sound angry? Absolutley not....Sometimes the only way to get the attention [edited by administrator].because you cannot reason[edited by administrator].
This whole discussion started as a challenge to list some scientific facts....I'm pretty sure I did......so then realizing that you had in no way the capacity to intelligently discuss what I wrote - you proceeded to play word games....It's like you invented a trap that was never set, and then you stepped back and said "aha"...but it's ridiculous....completely. Go ahead and fight it out with yourself on whether or not a fact born out through science can in fact be called a scientic fact.....who cares? It's just word games......and it's boring. I know you can do better.
If you want to get into the argument of whether or not an atom (or pick anything you want) is a FACT...or SCIENTIC FACT..then that's on you...

I work with an anti-catholic scientist, and he is the first to admit that science does not confirm fact, but merely seeks to explain what we know through observation. Experience is not science. Explanation of experience is. That is what Cadet is saying... But, these explanations are not proven in the sense that would make them immutable.

FJ

The amusing part is we're all remaining quite calm and your posts have steadily grown more impossible to read.

Could you please do me the favor of splitting up your thoughts so I can read them?

Many thanks.

Hey....I'm laughing too believe me!.......sometimes....like cattle - you have to get out the prod(sp)......I'm pretty sure I've stayed my course and my position is sound...so no sweat.....he can get back on and explain to me the difference between theory and fact.. hahahaa

I work with an anti-christian scientist, and he is the first to admit that science does not confirm fact, but merely seeks to explain what we know through observation. Experience is not science. Explanation of experience is. That is what Cadet is saying... But, these explanations are not proven in the sense that would make them immutable.

FJ

I'm gonna speed this up a bit... I asked for scientific truth... You said...

"Cell Membrane"
"The air we breathe"

How are those scientific facts? Those are merely objects that can be observed... You could have said "brick" or "My sister Cathy"... Are those scientific facts as well?

FJ

Isn't not beliveing in the supernatural atheism?

I odn't relaly consider God supernatural but spiritual really.

there have been facts disproving evolution. I odn't know what they are. Maybe people could tell me resources and give me links to help the fact we do not come form monkeys. I think its possible we had tails and needed hair all over in the ice age, but we were not monkeys

What don't you accept? I'm guessing immaculate conception.

I used to have no belief in God and thought it was ass flase. But, go to a church service if you haven't. You will see people moved by the spirit. When I see people with their eyes closed and hands waved by another force which obviously inst them and very happy and moved it is proof. There is proof Jesus existed too.

There are many theories of evolution. Some are compatible with revelation. Others are not. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) many of the theories that contradict revelation are also the ones with the least scientific support.

There is no disproof of evolution... Just as there is no proof of it either. It is at best a hypothesis at the moment... (it being the idea in general)...

The idea we came from monkeys is false. I don't think that has ever been a part of the theory. There was the idea that we came from apes, but this is largely unsupported. If evolution is true in that sense, then what we were no longer exists.

Lastly, religious fervor is no proof of anything. People can get worked up about anything.

FJ

FJ

I know you have trouble with the meanings of words, but surely you know what "example" means???

If you are incapable of answering the question, just say so. People here will respect you more for just admitting the truth than for dodging questions for several pages.

This is my whole point....I'm not dodging anything. I contend that you guys are...EVEN IF I did list an example that you have an issue with you should at least be able to get the gist of this thread....the cadet did not...he simply wanted to confuse and sidestep the issue with wordplay....it's that simple....This is the bottom line.

Do you or do you not acknowledge Scientific truth. fact. reality....whatever you want to call it.????????????
This is the question.

I mean as far as I know anything that can be borne out through scientific means, math whatever....lets say for instance....the temperature at which water boils...Under one atmosphere of pressure..water boils at 100c......I would say that this is indeed a scientific fact........so do you or do you not agree with this?

Once this question is answered we can move on.

yes, swag, water boils at 100c at 1 atmosphere of pressure. This is a piece of information that scientific study has provided us concerning water. Scientific facts - which are not the same thing as 'truth' or 'reality' - can often be found/observed. Are you ready to move on?

Brother....a fact is a truth/reality......but yes we can move on.

Where would you like to start?

How about we start with 'a fact is a truth/reality'?

Science is one field of study through which we can learn about (God's) creation. If I study the relationship between heat and water, I can define certain terms (degrees celsius, atmosphere's of pressure) such that I can confidently state that from what has been observed, pure water will boil at 100 of what I have defined as a degree celsius when the water is under 1 atmosphere of pressure. And I demonstrate through repeated 'tests' that water does indeed behave that way.

This is what a scientific study of water tells me. THis is an element contained in my observance and to which I will attach as my reality which, hopefully, is inline with actual reality.

Where did you wish to go with this thread when you made these comments from page 1 (which have no basis and are, what is the word you used, absurd)?

I was trying to get you to use words properly. Obviously that is a lost cause.