Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

I can show you SCRIPTURE from God (not Jesus) where he's commanded the rape of innocent virgins and the killing of unborn children.

Challenge?

 

Very true. No reason at all why religion and science are not compatible complementary parts of the human experience. But these things have no working part but for the men that participate.
Nothing anywhere says these men will work together and worse yet, no one is offering a grant to encourage this collaboration.

 

The word of God? Well I don't know about that, I suspect you will be showing a passage from the Jewish Torah which a portion of is included in the Old Testament. That is the way it was, the reason why Jesus began his teaching.

 

Your argument was the world thought the world was flat a couple hundred years ago. That means the general population. What a few believe has no relevance to your argument

 

I would challenge that. You will find it in the Bible, but that is not the word of God. God actually condemned all those things

 

Spot on Fisherman! I personally participated in capturing the first batch of Salmon raised in the Marion Forks hatchery. I have often asked the young biologist how it is that this species of fish got so screwed up that we need to kill them all, within the span of my lifetime? They can not answer. Most don't know that it began that short of time back. They have just drank the Koolaid and memorized the spiel. If the group in training at the U of O Marine science lab in Charleston Lab is representative we are in deep trouble. The are learning to be tools.

 

you keep calling views arguments...I'm not biting..and using few believe in reference to my opinion is a judgement and a highly exaggerated one. Talk with me, not at me.

 

I'm just getting confused with your hyperbole or using straw man arguments. If you want to argue a circle is square, then do so. Don't use circle is square arguments for arguing a circle is circle

 

When you disagree, we debate. You are taking this way too personal

 

lol. says who?

 

no..I'm actually just weighing in on the topic and having opposing views does not mean we need to debate them. I'd rather discuss them objectively..this is where you lose discourse on a subject. We have different value systems and believe me, it's not personal

 

More definitions to bait me..a circle is a square? Look in the mirror my friend because you're straying away from logic. Whatever gives you joy...even if it's calling me names and boxing my beliefs in a corner...hyperbole and straw man..these are your go to terms for discounting the opinions of others. it seems you're all about making topics personal but mags..that's not the process that leads to the solutions, that's the problem. Situation, problem, process, solution...you need to move past part two..the problem phase of discussion

 

I did. And I gave you a quote from another. But I have no doubt you can find others that will tell you the same thing unless of course
you are one of the, uh ones that don't want to know.

 

Agree 110%.

Countless fish and animals are now being killed by the very governmental agencies responsible for their management. The killing of hatchery raised Salmon is just one sad example.

The special interest groups that claim to by trying to "Save the Salmon" also support the killing of the hatchery Salmon. Actually, I can make a case that the special interest group’s goal is to kill off as many of a species they are trying to save as possible.

Reason, when the population of a species drops below a certain level, it will be listed as endangered under the ESA (Endangered Species Act). An endangered species listing trumps all other legal and governmental regulations, treaties or legal filings. Which means all harvesting of the fish or animal by anyone for any reason must stop.

That is the Universities agenda, to stop fishing and hunting, no mater how many fish and animals they need to kill to do it. Their best and least expensive tool to achieve their agenda is the ESA.

Sadly, it is the professors in the OR & WA universities that are behind a lot of the misinformation studies being used to support environmental agendas. They are creating faulty studies taught to students (funded by a foundation with a stop all fishing and hunting agenda) with the cover story of returning the ecosystem to a more natural state. Natural is a much easier sell than the truth about them wanting to stop some activity.

I had a long discussion once with a student of the U of O science lab. He admitted to me that he knew what was being taught was wrong, but to get a passing grade, he had to agree with the professor. I can only hope more young people have the common sense he does, so when they are working in a job with influence over environmental decisions, they will do what is right, not what is wrong based on misleading science taught in a school with an agenda.

 

why should anyone take your word for what jesus "really meant"? when people have their own interpretation of gods words, does that make it so?

 

Your discussion said the world viewed the earth being flat a few hundred years ago. The world view was thousand plus years ago. End of story

 

Good, so we agree that religion and science can coexist. Time to move on

 

I explained the analogy but like I said, no matter the timeline..science was wrong over the course of time. They've also been very right over the same period..the story never ends mags..