Expect to be called on it? You were not just "calling on it" you were mocking posters in several posts and that is not neither cool, nor mature.
The question of the thread is can you define God by science? I answered it based on my own interpretation of this rather broad question. Or does our interpretation HAVE to mirror your own in order for you to display a bit tact? Live n let live, haina? I do feel that an observation of the various systems in the world....(that scientists study) ...can provide some insight about God. It's like an archaeologist trying to understand the people of a civilized based upon a few artifacts. Thankfully, God has given us more than a few artifacts from which we can try to define our understand him.
Anytime someone mixes science and religion I will call them on the ridiculousness. You r entitled to ur beliefs. But that doesn't make them fact in the scientific community. Bit of sarcasm is called for in this case. U r the one who chooses to call it mocking.
The discussion is ridiculous and meaningless. You state ur opinion based on .......Not good.
Yes I used ..... in this context cause science and religion, just as govt and religion, don't mix.
Why not participate in science discussions (other than ones dealing with God). That would be nice. (Yes I know u have some ready retort for this)
Please have the last word. And practice perfect circles.
Anytime someone mixes science and religion I will call them on the ridiculousness. You r entitled to ur beliefs. But that doesn't make them fact in the scientific community. But of sarcasm is called for in this case. U r the one who chooses to call it mocking.
The discussion is ridiculous and meaningless. You state ur opinion based on "fairy tales". Not good.
Yes I used fairy tales in this context cause science and religion, just as govt and religion, don't mix.
Please have the last word.
Um, I never said that my beliefs will be deemed as "fact" by the scientific community. The scientific process is heavily based upon observation among other steps. If I said that Allah encourages us to understand him through OBSERVATION of the natural world, I would think that the scientist community would find that sensible and not "ridiculous" as science itself deals with observation. I didn't bring a heavy amount of religion into the discussion. I brought up a connection that any reasonable person, scientist or otherwise, religious or otherwise, can agree upon. But it seems to have deeply vexed you. Have you created some sort of rubric for this thread where you "grade" members' posts for how valid they would be for the "scientific community"...hmm?
What "fairy tales" have I used? TLK brought up parting of the red see and Noah's Ark; I didn't. I shared my belief in these phenomenons based on my opinion of the natural, observable world. I certainly wasn't on a mission to prove that Noah's Ark and the parting of a sea as truth. I mentioned religion in the most minor of ways.....and look how incensed you've become.
I will remind you again for the umpteenth time...and will do so again and again and again. You either keep forgetting or do not care that the majority of the people here are religious and they will not appreciate you calling accounts in their books as "fairy tales." That is very inconsiderate. Show some restraint, have some tameez.
I may have just grown mine, par tumhari claws paidaa'ishi lagti hain. You should take a long sabbatical and file your own claws down some. You're often the one initiating the claw-scratching with me and I've often ignored it, but not this time. The obsession is disturbing; grow up.
LMAO, and I am not the only person on the forum weirded out by your sharp mood swings. Don’t worry, you’re just as noticeable to others, if not more. :k:
Stating that bringing religious logic into scientific discussions is akin to fairy tales from a scientific perspective is not lack of tameez. Stop playing the majority card and keep ur emotions under check. I would say accusing someone of not showing tameez in this context is not showing tameez.
Baat bari gambheer hai. You are like the boy on the playground who pulls on a girl’s pigtails and when slapped hard, you fancy yourself the object of her affection as a coping mechanism. Lucky me.
Southie, you don’t have a strong case here and you’re more than welcome to report to the mods, I am not worried as I know I’ve done nothing wrong here and I tend to admit when I’m out of line.
And this is why observation, the point I mentioned earlier, is such a powerful God-given tool. Though Philo fancies herself to be both a victim and a “fixation” of mine, it can be easily refuted by a simple “observation” of the sequence of both of our posts. They will make clear to anyone of sound visual faculties and mind which of us initiated attacks. The mods can find a pattern of her initiated “digs” at me in other threads, so take all the notes you want, Mr. Scientist.
I’m afraid I can’t. Your idiosyncrasies render me speechless. So I shall leave it to your posts to screech their volumes for you and thus prevent further derailment of the thread.
The deep ocean being dark isn't 50/50 its obvious it would be dark.
not ture.
observation tell, because how far down people could with out modern equipments, there was light. To go that deep "where you extend hand and dont see"
you need to put on driving gear which could withstand water pressure at that level .
Know one knew that fact, untill that gear was invented.
chill out…I’m not the first to tell you that recently
Though Philo fancies herself to be both a victim and a “fixation” of mine, it can be easily refuted by a simple “observation” of the sequence of both of our posts. They will make clear to anyone of sound visual faculties and mind which of us initiated attacks. The mods can find a pattern of her initiated “digs” at me in other threads, so take all the notes you want, Mr. Scientist.