Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The temperature on Mars may reach a high of about 70 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) at noon, at the equator in the summer, or a low of about -225 degrees Fahrenheit (-153 degrees Celsius) at the poles.

Darwinists simply project the kind of life they see on earth into outer space and expect to find it there. Wrong definition, wrong expectations.

There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.

Given present technology, we've only just begun to discover planets beyond our system. In most cases, we haven't seen the planets themselves, we've guessed at them because of the behavior of the stars they orbit.

So we still haven't figured out the base problem of this thread. Is there life anywhere else but here? Life of any kind, whether intelligent or not?

Or next year astronomers can find an object moving through in the Ort Cloud in what appears to be in a strangely controlled way. Closer examinations reveals that it appears to be a vessel of some kind. Thirty seconds later, the governments of Earth cover it up.

Maybe so, but much much of the article itself is complete gibberish. It even touches on the idea that the universe seems fine tuned for man; in fact the more you know about astronomy, etc the less "fine tuned" the universe is. Even so, I can find some truth in there. It just gets difficult to overlook the nonsense. Maybe the distracting and sometimes incorrect tangents the other goes one just needed to be edited out.

There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.

Not sure where to go with this one. "Science" regularly gives us believers a hard time because science can't measure God, therefore claims Him not to exist.

Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence
18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services (compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population
15 percent of scientists consider themselves very religious (19 percent)
13.5 percent of scientists read religious texts weekly (17 percent)
But research also shows where the threads of suspicion run. A 2009 study by Pew Research found a wider gap between scientists and the general public on religion. And Ecklund’s new study also found:

22 percent of scientists and 20 percent of the general population think most religious people are hostile to science
22 percent of the general population thinks scientists are hostile to religion
27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflict
Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion
- See more at: http://cathylynngrossman.religionnews.com/2014/02/16/science-religion-aaas-hamonnye-evangelical/#sthash.cg7CX2gK.dpuf

Quote from: ersi on 2015-02-08, 18:48:13

There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.

If a system of ethics doesn't consider the truth important, it's inherently unethical and deserves to be spit on. One has  to be very careful to distinguish "good ethical reasons" from the epitome of unethicality.

Empirical science has no claim on the immaterial, even though it mistakenly tries to lay claim on it all the time.

Anyway, whether separable or not, both truth and ethics as a whole are unempirical. Empirical science has no claim on the immaterial, even though it mistakenly tries to lay claim on it all the time.

Almost a quarter of Americans think scientists are hostile to religion. But what do we really know about how scientists think about morality, spirituality and faith?

From 2005 to 2008, I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists on their views about religion, spirituality and ethics and spoke with 275 of them in depth in their offices and laboratories. It turns out that nearly 50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month. While many scientists are completely secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques.

Of the atheist and agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with, more than 30 percent considered themselves atheists; however, less than six percent of these were actively working against religion. Many atheist and agnostic scientists even think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually, and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community. If religious people better understood the full range of atheistic practice -- and the way that it interfaces with religion for some -- they might be less likely to hold negative attitudes toward nonreligious scientists. The truth is that many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people.

Truth is a difficult concept because it varies so much from culture to culture, and within a culture from person to person.

my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques.

Looks like atheist and agnostic churches are seriously left behind when it comes to belief in God, but even they are not totally devoid of faith

Let me know if you ever find an atheist or agnostic church. My head is spinning.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-02-11, 08:27:48

Looks like atheist and agnostic churches are seriously left behind when it comes to belief in God, but even they are not totally devoid of faith

Let me know if you ever find an atheist or agnostic church. My head is spinning.