₦airaland Forum

OkaiCorne:
.

But then, this doesn't also apply in all cases...

budaatum:
I would not agree, and separating them makes for either a bad philosopher or a bad scientist. They may be different aspects of study, but in practice, the two, as methods of enquiry, must go together or that enquiry is not as wholesome or robust as can be. Even courses in either include the other.

Newton himself eventually combined the two, philosophically seeking the philosophers stone then scientifically applying the knowledge he derived to make himself a very wealthy man.

vaxx:
how can someone who study biological science apply philosophy in his discipline?

OkaiCorne:
There we go again with the needless insults...

Perhaps my questions are random and irrelevant to you because your mind isn't broad enough to accommodate certain things yet...

Never mind, everyone has their growth rate in various aspects of life...

Furthermaths can't make sense to someone who is still struggling with Arithmetics...

No insults intended...

budaatum:
I checked what wiki says about philosophy and found it puts across an adequate response to your question. Lets talk further after you've read the first two paragraphs.

vaxx:
what I am basically telling you is do not not try to demonstrate creationist theory using scientific lens. It is a wrong tool for a different job...... Scientist do not do with metaphorical phenomenon. They deal with observable substances. Scientist are materialistic minded, anything that can not be observed using the five senses and with the aid of assisted computerised object is consider non scientific........

I agree with you the dust may not be the single literal form we all know. It may be a combination of diffrent molecules and ions both known and unknown. But all these are just mere assumption. Science is still in its infancy.....and science do with literal substance. Maybe when science met philosophy once again. The thtuth will be accelerated.

Do science even have a benchmark?

budaatum:
You've been casting comments like the above. Do you really think I am too dim witted not to notice the sarcasm implied? Please don't dish out what you can't take please.

OkaiCorne:
The limitations of science can't even tell us how the jungle fowl came to be in the first place...yet people still hide under the cover of science to conclude no Creator exists...

What an irony...

I still have questions I'm hoping I can get intelligent answers to... especially from atheists

For example, what is responsible for instincts and intuitive knowledge in Man and animals?

I'm not obliging you to answer this though...it's just a rhetorical question...

vaxx:
Yes, science has limitations. only an ignorance will not accept it. but science deserve an applause. not knowing the answer for now those not have bearing on the veracity of scientific theory. what i mean is, it is not the answers to these question where the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. At least science was able to prove the 10th cousin and great9 grandparents, of chicken. the jungle fowl. more rigorous exploration and pursuit are still needed to come into conclusion. which i think science is incapable for now.

for your next question. i will like an atheist to engage you. maybe budaatum can take the challenge. the question is interesting.


for my last paragraph ,the question is rhetorical, no need to answer.

OkaiCorne:
Definitely, Science has been extremely helpful in solving a lot of issues that might have been left in the realm of mysteries and I doff my hat for that... however, it's still a rapidly growing body of knowledge... and currently doesn't have answers to all of life's questions.

vaxx:
it is still in its infancy.

vaxx:
Yes, science has limitations. only an ignorance will not accept it. but science deserve an applause. not knowing the answer for now those not have bearing on the veracity of scientific theory. what i mean is, it is not the answers to these question where the theory presently draws its strength, so an absence of answers does not falsify the theory. At least science was able to prove the 10th cousin and great9 grandparents, of chicken. the jungle fowl. more rigorous exploration and pursuit are still needed to come into conclusion. which i think science is incapable for now.

for your next question. i will like an atheist to engage you. maybe budaatum can take the challenge. the question is interesting.


for my last paragraph ,the question is rhetorical, no need to answer.

vaxx:
it is still in its infancy.

OkaiCorne:
The limitations of science can't even tell us how the jungle fowl came to be in the first place...yet people still hide under the cover of science to conclude no Creator exists...

budaatum:
Behind your statements is this assumed attack of atheists, which is not my purpose in this thread to defend so I'm not going there. There after all are numerous threads set up for that purpose.

This one is about the Garden of Eden, and not chickens or eggs, and I put it to you that a youtube video hypothesis should not be sufficient to base ones knowledge on. Least not for me anyway. I am after all, an atheist.

I'll keep an eye on the thread, but would not be responding to your questions until I see a relevant one that interests me. I am sure we would meet again on another thread.

OkaiCorne:
Definitely, Science has been extremely helpful in solving a lot of issues that might have been left in the realm of mysteries and I doff my hat for that... however, it's still a rapidly growing body of knowledge... and currently doesn't have answers to all of life's questions.

OkaiCorne:
You didn't have an answer to my chicken and egg question...and now you are saying it is not a relevant question...

Who started attacking who? Was it not your fellow atheist Hahn that mentioned I am delusional?

Now that I am asking questions...I am now attacking atheists abi?

budaatum:
I am not hahn. I am buda.

budaatum:
Rephrase:

Definitely, humans have found science extremely helpful in solving a lot of issues......


Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

It is done by humans. It does not do itself.

OkaiCorne:
Same meaning...different perspectives...

Of course anyone should know science cannot do itself...

And that's the challenge with expressing one's self with words...

Only if we could all read each other's minds...

OkaiCorne:
No probs...

Please don't be offended if you feel I have insulted you in anyway...

budaatum:
If one does not have all the information and or facts, one need not insert a god thing in the gap to hide ones ignorance. One can say, 'one does not know'. Unless it is accepted that saying "god done it", is admission of ones ignorance.

OkaiCorne:
You didn't have an answer to my chicken and egg question...and now you are saying it is not a relevant question...

Who started attacking who? Was it not your fellow atheist Hahn that mentioned I am delusional?

Now that I am asking questions...I am now attacking atheists abi?

OkaiCorne:
Definitely, Science has been extremely helpful in solving a lot of issues that might have been left in the realm of mysteries and I doff my hat for that... however, it's still a rapidly growing body of knowledge... and currently doesn't have answers to all of life's questions.

budaatum:
It is humans who are in their infancy.

budaatum:
Science does not have limitations. Human beings do. Science is just one more tool we use to understand the world we live in. It sets up criteria by which we judge. Otherwise, any statement could be accepted as the way things are and there would be no way to ascertain if Obatala created the first human or Yahweh done it instead. They can't both have created the first human afterall.

One should be careful of anthropomorphosising science, or philosophy for that matter. And filling the gaps of ones ignorance with gods is sheer laziness, in my opinion.

hahn:
But you ARE delusional. It is not an insult. I was simply stating the fact

hahn:
But you ARE delusional. It is not an insult. I was simply stating the fact

OtemAtum:
Science can never have answers to all of life's questions. If it has, then it means God(Existence) has been totally studied and there wouldn't be any more need to learn further. Existence is unlimited and infinite, so science will never get to know a significant explanation to existence forever and ever, yet what science have explained about Existence in a century is a billion times more than what all the religions of the world have been able to explain about existence in a billion years. Science is still the way forward.

OkaiCorne:
I've gotten reasonable responses from budaatum and vaxx...but you have not mentioned anything worthwhile on this thread...

I wonder if you have anything reasonable to say...than the usual anthem of atheists...which is "delusional"...

Always repeating that same word like a broken record...


Chat some more...let everyone on this thread see how intelligent you are...whilst you are limited within the four walls of logic...