It seems that all this aguementation arose because someone believes that:
"Humans are NOT animals",
then someone replied:
"Humans ARE animals".
Who is right? I'd say both. Because, although they are using the same words ( humans and animals) they have different concepts for these words.
That's the main reason of so much misunderstanding in the world. If I say "I'm a good person", I would be telling the truth if the concept I have of being a good person fits the way I behave. But everyone else would agree I'm a good person? Every single person has her own concept of what a "good person" is, and it certanly doesn't fit exactly my own concept.
Ok, let's forget about this human-animal subject, I'd like to talk a little about the later discussion (Noah's Ark, scientific proofs of Biblical events, Creationism-evolutionism).
I followed the links Sydney and Pinkhaired provided, and I found them very interesting, and after reading them I came to a conclusion:
The real scentific method start from one point: observation. Then some [b/]hipothesys[/b] arise. An experimentation method is apllied, after all some results are collected. Then, a theory is formulated to explain the results of the investigation. That theory can be proved or refuted, and it is refuted, improvements on the theory are made to fit the new discoveries. Then life goes on.
It seems that fundamentalist and Creationist scientists have just reverted the process. They start from the point that "The Bible is all the truth. It's the infallible speech of God herself, amen" and then they go on trying to prove ideas that doesn't need to be proved, because the first assumption made by them was that it is already the truth. The right word here is acceptance. You accept it or not.
Well, now I'm lost. I forgot where was I trying to reach. Just concluding:
Religion belief is a matter or faith. It can't be proved or refuted. Science also have it load of faith in it, since we can prove or refute every single scentific theory about the world. We just accept most of them.
But there is a great difference between Science and Religion. Science allows refutation. Something that was right could be turned out to be wrong. Religious dogmas don't have such flexibility.
Sydney - I can clearly see your point, and I agree with it.
Pinky - What is your point? What are you trying to tell us? Sincerely, I don't get it.
|