[General Battuta]

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

I made a statement about the compatibility of science with religion, and what science says about religious matters. I said nothing about the compatibility of religion with science, neither ideological nor historical.

Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****.  

Learn how to ****ing read. What I said was related to your post in that historically religion has often tried to suppress scientific achievement.

And BTW, since you have a history of not understanding even basic things that I've said, I'd suggest you take up some lessons on the subject.

It was not related. Take a moment to calm down, then please review my last post for an explanation.

I said nothing about the actions of religion upon science. My statement was entirely about the statements science makes about the existence of an omnipotent being.

You made a directionality error. Understandable, but still wrong.

[General Battuta]

When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.

I don't recall saying "always".

And I am very much aware of the history of Islam, I know full well that for a while at the beginning it was very open to science, but then it was decided by some imams (I don't recall the faction off hand) that pursuit of scientific knowledge was no longer important, and ultimately it fell to the same sort of fundementalism that plagued the christian nations during the dark age with very similair results.

I'll tell you what, I found a paper written by the chairman of the physics department of a university in pakistan (so he's pretty much at the center of the ****storm) about this subject. Care to trade?

Good, that's an improvement. I would be happy to read it.

[Kosh]

Take a moment to calm down,

If you weren't such an ass in that post I quoted, I wouldn't have flamed you.

I said nothing about the actions of religion upon science. My statement was entirely about the statements science makes about the existence of an omnipotent being.

You made a directionality error. Understandable, but still wrong.

That maybe so, but isn't religion ultimately about people's interpretations of it? If people interpret holy scriptures as being the literal truth, in that situation how could science and religion be compatible?

[Kosh]

When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.

I don't recall saying "always".

And I am very much aware of the history of Islam, I know full well that for a while at the beginning it was very open to science, but then it was decided by some imams (I don't recall the faction off hand) that pursuit of scientific knowledge was no longer important, and ultimately it fell to the same sort of fundementalism that plagued the christian nations during the dark age with very similair results.

I'll tell you what, I found a paper written by the chairman of the physics department of a university in pakistan (so he's pretty much at the center of the ****storm) about this subject. Care to trade?

Good, that's an improvement. I would be happy to read it.

Here it is

Your turn.

[General Battuta]

Pretty good read. You're not going to find it differing much from your analysis.

You made a directionality error. Understandable, but still wrong.

That maybe so, but isn't religion ultimately about people's interpretations of it? If people interpret holy scriptures as being the literal truth, in that situation how could science and religion be compatible?

Again, directionality. We're not talking about mutual compatibility here, we're talking about science's compatibility with religion.

I refer you to my earlier post discussing the topic.

To summarize: there is nothing in my statement related to the bidirectional relationship between science and religion, historically or ideologically.

All I am saying is that nothing in science ever has, or ever will, made a statement about the existence of, or possibility of, omnipotent beings.

[Scotty]

So, Kosh, did you just completely ignore my post earlier about how it isn't religion, but rather political organizations that use religion to their own ends that have that bad habit of not liking science too much?  Cuz if you didn't, I must have missed the refutation when you kept arguing.

That aside, flaming is never a good solution.  Ever.  If you can't keep ad hominems or the like out of it, it's not worth posting.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I keep forgetting the implications of this breakthrough, and when I do, I can't help but think of 9.

[karajorma]

Okay. Time to cut out the flaming guys. I'm enjoying the sunshine out here so anyone who makes me have to head inside to ban you is getting more than a day off.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

It'll be interesting to see if anything significant comes out of this. "Significant" in the sense of perhaps re-creating extinct animals, if that's possible.

[Kosh]

So, Kosh, did you just completely ignore my post earlier about how it isn't religion, but rather political organizations that use religion to their own ends that have that bad habit of not liking science too much?  Cuz if you didn't, I must have missed the refutation when you kept arguing.

That aside, flaming is never a good solution.  Ever.  If you can't keep ad hominems or the like out of it, it's not worth posting.

Sorry I forgot about it. To reply, while that certain is true to some extent, the real root of the problem is when science contradicts a literally interpreted religious text. This happened with Galileo and it happened again with Darwin (though the church had lost most of its political power by that time so he wasn't burned at the stake). As long as religious fundementalists are allowed to hold the ear of whatever masses follow said faith, science can never progress.

And as for the flaming, frankly if he didn't say what I quoted in such an obnoxious and rude way it would never have happened.

Again, directionality. We're not talking about mutual compatibility here, we're talking about science's compatibility with religion.

I refer you to my earlier post discussing the topic.

To summarize: there is nothing in my statement related to the bidirectional relationship between science and religion, historically or ideologically.

All I am saying is that nothing in science ever has, or ever will, made a statement about the existence of, or possibility of, omnipotent beings.

Ok, I see what you're saying. But the problem is there is more to religion that just belief in dieties, there's also the accompanying text, and ultimately that is where science and religion have problems, particularly when that text is literally interpreted and scientific fact contradicts it.

[Liberator]

It'll be interesting to see if anything significant comes out of this. "Significant" in the sense of perhaps re-creating extinct animals, if that's possible.

Extinct animals are extinct for a reason.  They couldn't adapt rapidly enough to meet a revised set of survival conditions.  Using our science to bring back a wooly mammoth is going to accomplish what exactly?

[iamzack]

What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?

**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.

[SpardaSon21]

Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.

[Scotty]

So, Kosh, did you just completely ignore my post earlier about how it isn't religion, but rather political organizations that use religion to their own ends that have that bad habit of not liking science too much?  Cuz if you didn't, I must have missed the refutation when you kept arguing.

That aside, flaming is never a good solution.  Ever.  If you can't keep ad hominems or the like out of it, it's not worth posting.

Sorry I forgot about it. To reply, while that certain is true to some extent, the real root of the problem is when science contradicts a literally interpreted religious text. This happened with Galileo and it happened again with Darwin (though the church had lost most of its political power by that time so he wasn't burned at the stake). As long as religious fundementalists are allowed to hold the ear of whatever masses follow said faith, science can never progress.

And as for the flaming, frankly if he didn't say what I quoted in such an obnoxious and rude way it would never have happened.

In your own argument you bring up that it's the religious fundamentalists, acting as a political force or organization, that are a stumbling block, not religion itself.  There is nothing to your argument that indicates that religion is incompatible with science, only that stupid people will twist it to their own ends.

I don't care what the cause is, flaming is never an acceptable response.  Ever.  Be the better person.

[iamzack]

Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.

Nah.

[Scotty]

What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?

**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.

But who wants to bring back a wooly mammoth?

[General Battuta]

Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.

That ultimate cause is actually divorced from the proximate cause. You'd need to present data suggesting that people who have breast augmentation have more kids.

[iamzack]

What do improvements in breast augmentation surgery accomplish?

**** doesn't have to be useful. People just have to want it.

But who wants to bring back a wooly mammoth?

I'd like to see a woolly mammoth. That would be ****ing awesome.

[SpardaSon21]

Breast augmentation gets bigger boobs, which increase a female's attractiveness to the males of her species, increasing her chances of reproduction and passing on her genes.

That ultimate cause is actually divorced from the proximate cause. You'd need to present data suggesting that people who have breast augmentation have more kids.

I make a semi-serious statement about why women would choose to get breast implants (the first part about attracting males was serious, second part about kids wasn't), and you go and pull something like this?  Seriously, what the hell is up with you?

[Qent]

Iamzack speaks the truth. Managing the environment isn't the only reason to bring back animals.

I want to see a dinosaur.