Jump to content

noquacks

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About noquacks

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

945 profile views
  1. In a way, yes, respect, in context of course. I should think there is a better word for it, perhaps acknowledged, maybe not so much "respect". The problem with the Bible is that too many people still believe much of its content literally. It is full of falsehoods. Therefore, it has no credibility. That doesnt mean we shouldn't understand why it was written that way, but respect maybe is too strong a choice of a word. Of course, Charles, as you mentioned, since it was the 1st attempt, one should expect that. And the main problem today with the Bible is that is seems to have a privileged status, that it is to be questioned. Its only practical use today really is as a required study for English majors/English Literature. It is truly a treasure for that purpose, but little else.
  2. I agree, except that it was considered reasonable based on what man knew about biology, earth science, astronomy and chemistry 3000 years ago. It is not considered reasonable today.
  3. I goofed on the entire reply/edit, sorry people. I even accidentally erased inows words. Just wanted to post : Inow, thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
  4. But even the revered activity of observation has recently been proven unreliable. Not only in our justice system relying on line-ups and witnesses to a crime, testimonials on having witnessed a crime, but the famous Gorilla Experiment done at Univ of Illinois. Observation now is even considered not essential in scientific method by some scientists.
  5. Thanks, Chen, that is a very interesting idea. So should I just add conc HCl, and then place it in a dessicator? How could I be sure it will dry out as the tri hydrate? If so, this is a great plan. Thanks in advace for your reply/advice.
  6. People, Have some Iridium chloride, and it has absorbed moisture, and now I can not determine the % of Ir as it is a blob now. Anyone know of a way to turn it into say, an oxide, weigh it, then redisolve it once the Ir content is known? Thanks, people.
  7. How can that be possible, inow? Can an evolutionary biologist then also believe in these "fairy tales", as you say, while still carrying on with his life and live it thus so? This idea is so bizarre to me. A scientist believes in the scientific method and at the same time believes that there may be Sasquatches in Oregon, or Trolls living in the woods in Norway.........And let's not forget the mexican cubachabra that roams the southwest. All fairy tales. How is this possible?
  8. Right- and while charity can be construed as a good thing, it does not prove the existence of any God. And the fact that some destitute people depend on charity is an abomination to the idea that God created man in his image. Guess he is watching all this play out, his hobby, creation of man......being God can be boring.
  9. Mnem, I tend to agree with you except that perhaps some guy named Jesus existed, but not as we now recognize him. There are records, but huge gaps in the Bible about him- thats what seems so fishy about his story. Crazy as it sounds, I actually know a medical doctor who believes jesus walked on water. People believe this silliness.
  10. Clearly, this can go on forever, entertaining all of us members, but back to the original title of the thread, one can not believe both tenets, Bible(Religion) AND Science. You can not cherry pick Bible/religion, say, how man was created by God 5000 years ago and at the same time support evolution of man, for example. Numerous other examples. You have to make a choice.
  11. I agree, Mig. to 99% of what you say. But as far as "support the Church may give them", that can be achieved by non "Church" institutions. Churches do not have a monopoly on charity. They would seem to want to aggressively protect that image, but we do not need "Churches". A Church's primary purpose if to worship some type of God from some type of religion.
  12. 1) Anyone who has as their signature (quote??) , which is an opportunity , in a sentence or 2, to portray just a bit of your identity , a quote from the Bible, a book which has no credibility, is telling. 2) Whats a CV? Dont expect all of us to be familiar with your code. 3) Reputation goes far beyond publishing- you earn it over time, and it is not earned (in Biology, at least) if one goes around embracing Bible bunk, and (again) teaching it to "cute" children. In my opinion, all kids are cute, by the way. Dont take advantage of them, unless you wish to be in the company of so many wicked vile Bible hugging priests. 4) Darwin?? Really? Have you truly studies Darwin's life (not to mention the life of his wife)? ( You) give me (and the rest of us here) a break. While his wife, which he adored so very much despite her strong religious beliefs, was a God believer, he was not. And he had to tread very carefully within the scientific community, and not to offend anyone with his monumental discoveries. That does in no way make him complicit by default that he believed in any Gods. Leave Darwin out of this. This is in part, about the credibility of the bogus Bible, and any such God, and Religious cults, and to the original question about science and religion. The Bible's credibility did not have to wait for Darwin- Galileo and others took care of that a few centuries earlier. 5) You dont have to be obligated to us here in this forum to prove anything, as I said, you make your own bed, and if you wish to keep on being a scientist hugging a Bible, clinging onto , and defending the untenable status of one or more of the 3 major religious cults, you are free to do so. But dont expect the highest degree of respect from peers in the scientific community. 6) YES, you are obligated to prove the existence of God if you state a claim of such a belief, or join the company of Charlatans, Healers, Priests, Popes, Pastors, Politicians, Shamans, Rabbis, Imams, etc. In science, you make a claim, prove it. Am I the only one who ever heard of this concept?
  13. To reply to the original question , and just in my opinion, yes, one can be a scientist and still believe in Religion (one of the 3 major religions), but one may not have much of a reputation, especially if your field is in Bio. Assuming also that believing in a religion, by default, one must believe that there is a God, and your choices are Allah, or Jehovah (Jehovah is for both Christians and Jews). Which one is the true God, no one knows. Let alone the minor religions, which may include a few hundred different Gods. By "believing in religion", you make your own bed- you believe in a God. Make that claim, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it, and to prove it to young tender children to whom this malarkey is taught, not to be questioned by them. There is no credible proof of any God. I used to believe- I bowed. knelt, prayed with dutiful obedience, with servitude. For 50 years. Got tired of it eventually. I read one too many books, people.
  14. The only thing I can offer is that my lithium nitrate, which I make myself from carbonate, is kept in a dessicator, or else it will turn into a liquid from so much water absorption. Even tightly capped.
  15. People, I grow some plants, and make up my own fertilizer recipes - very economical. But recently Ive found that mold grows sometimes in a solution of nutrients, for example, iron and calcium in DI water. What about benzalkonium chloride? Would that be toxic to plants? If not, at what ppm or percent should I make? I also thought about copper especially since plants do need copper, and one recipe does include Cu, although, I would have to be careful on overdoing the Cu level. Boron? Any advice appreciated!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.