Huge difference, when math says "2 + 2 = 4" we take out our counters and show our young how this is a fact.
Hipbones, not foreskins. And you're from Aussieland. We both know you'd still be getting the moyle. Me and my blast double on the otherhand...
That is wholesale incorrect.
No its not, do you agree that the theory of nuclear fission is now well proven fact?
Don't know. I've never witnessed it, nor have I ever met anyone who has. They're still studying it as far as I'm aware which implies there is still some debate surrounding it.
Not sure why you continually attempt to beat this dead horse. It's not relevant to your OP.
Nope we understand it to be true, its been used to generate electricity and to develop the atomic bomb for example.
Because the debate has progressed. You guys cant prove shit about religion whereas I can prove many scientific facts to be true. Just admit it.
I dont need faith to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 mate
Except places have stopped using it because they can't agree on safe handling of it, so no, you're incorrect. There is still disagreement about it.
For the millionth time, I have not once, ever, suggested that religion is fact. However the same leap of faith is required of science because science is entirely man made. Can you actually prove that 2+2=4? Or are you just repeating what you've been told for you entire life?
I didn't read the thread, just responding to the thread topic/question.
They made it work, unlike prayer.
I can prove it, put one finger up, then another and then count how many you see, that will be two. Now do the same with your other hand, thats 4
Good cause thats as good as my maths gets
The people of Chernobyl don't think they made it work.
You sure? What if what you think is 4 is actually 5?
Nuclear fission =/= the containment of radio active matter
Jesus Christ, do you speak more than one language? can you count to `10 in Italian?
Uh oh.
Thats where all the cocaine dealers go
Actually it was you that went down the "They use it for power" rabbit hole. As you were attempting to support your incorrect opinion that there is a long standing complete understanding of nuclear fission.
Yes, everyone here does, but I digress. You do realize that science itself is a human construct, right?
I never said complete just that we know enough to prove it exists, harnessing its power is one such proof.
Okay I can ask you in any language how many eyes a human being has and the answer in each language will be two.
I wasn't trying to suggest they were mutually exclusive. I was only trying to highlight that "leap of faith" applies to both, but in very different ways.Here's a perfect example of why i don't see science and faith as mutually exclusive: the 6000 year thing.
It was marked down that way by James Ussher taking the interpretation of all the recorded generations in the bible, and adding the "7 days".
Here's where i differ greatly from many of my fellow theologians.
What is a "day" to God? If someone were to think of it as a day to man, i feel they are sadly mistaken. The universe is 14 billion years old according to current science. I'd say a "day" to God equaling 2 billion years seems properly majestic.
Again, and I can't stress this enough. Your points about "You religious types" are irrelevant. Your OP stated that religion requires a leap of faith (which I've 100% agreed with) and that science doesn't. The problem is science is a human construct so it does in fact require a leap of faith to believe what you've been presented with (even something as simple as 2+2=4) because science has been entirely created by humans.
That's tight. I often think science tries to explain the how, while religion tries to help people understand the why.
That actually happened and the entire human population besides those residing in America and the Congo accepted it.
