> natural science within a world created by God. Of course the meaning has
Says you. Actually, I tend to agree, but that doesn't make it true.
Scientific Laws are what the experts have agreed are the best
explanations we currently have for the observable phenomena around us.
> changed now but the subtle nature of it hasn't. At current, there is
> roughly about 50 scientific laws ( I think. Someone correct me if I'm
> wrong). Everything else are hypotheses and theories which require faith as
How do you want to count laws? Does math count? Do Newton's Laws
count, even though they are approximations which become decreasingly
accurate as velocities approach the speed of light?
> well. I learned Netwon's Law of Gravity in physics class but I never
> actually conducted a test to prove it myself.
I did. It works pretty well, actually. :-)
> There is a subtle difference between the faith used in religion and the
> faith used in science though. The faith used in science is like having
> faith that a friend will pick you up at the agreed upon time because in
> every instance before he showed up at the time agreed upon. The faith in
And faith in religion is like having faith that your friend will pick
you up at the agreed upon time because he's a friend and said he would.
Either way, we're talking about an establishment of trust. Actually,
I kinda like that analogy. Nice.
> religion is actually a lot more complicated. If you took calculus before
> Einstein, the schools were teaching you untrue and incorrect information.
Okay, that didn't make sense. Calculus is calculus is calculus. It
gets a little bit more advanced every day, but the basics haven't
changed since Newton and Liebnitz laid them down. Newton's Limit Method
for determining the slope of a curve at a given point is still perfectly
accurate, if tedious and extremely difficult to use under certain
circumstances. What does Eienstein have to do with this?
--Ben
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
