Black Matta

When it doesn't ignite you adjust the rules. (It ignites in oxygen, at such and such a temperature etc.) Every time the rule breaks you adjust it.

Yes, but what's your point?



When it doesn't come down...(a heavy ball, travelling slower than the escape velocity, in the absence of other forces....)

??



Meaningless. You've been reading too many girlie magazines.

Not since I've had the internet....lol.



Scientific expectations go wrong all the time. That's mainly how science "progresses".

True, but justbecause he didn't get theintended result that doesn't cause a crisis of faith as is often the case in religion.

The scientist just changes his methods and keeps changing until he gets the intended result, and sleeps comfortably at night.

In religion, many people who don't get what they expect they often become disturbed and either change religions or stop believing all together andbecause the doctrine is set not to be altered.

You guys are STILL on this "science is religion" jive?????



Black Matta

Quick question for ya, do you believe in any form of science?


Calling them "facts" and "rules" is more to do with your faith in them than actual reality.

No, but I can call them facts and rules is mostly because of tried and proven methods to determin what is and isn't effective.

Nitro glycerine is a tried and proven combustable and it used in explosives.

It's combustablility wasn't discovered as a result of faith because there had to be a set of procedures to acctually extract and develop it....all dealing with facts, figures, and measurements.

People didn't just fall into a lake of nitroglycerine and had faith that it would make a good explosive.



Omaar, your political history is good. Your history of science is shite.

Mmmmm....maybe.
But I'm dealing mostly in common sense.



Your knowledge of science and scientists is shite.

No need to rub it it.



Science may be the most flexible of religions but it too has doctrines that are set not to be altered. To some, science is an expedient, like religion is to others.

No sir...

Science is NOT a religions, please stop saying that.





Timeline

Why you live in such a static world I do not know but "facts" are not "facts" if you know what I mean....because time reveals otherwise.

Whaaa...??

"Facts are not facts."?

It appears that North Caroline heat is starting to get to you, time to go indoors.




So you are saying that rituals in other religions are not based on "trial and error" as well? Have you taken a look at the Old Testiment of the bible lately? How many of those rituals do we subscribe to today? Humans pick and choose what they will obey from their religion. In a sense, religion serves them. We aren't static as a species Omaar...

Picking and choosing what to believe is not the same as the trial and error method.

Trial and error is more like reading a verse where Jesus says "ask and it shall be given to you"....asking...and if it's not given to you then you move on.

How many Christians have done that?

None, because their methods aren't based on trial and error, but upon faith and docrine.



Again, religious practices are labeled "out-dated" as well as scientific theories and humans find creative ways to get around the rules or creative ways to make religion work for them and god becomes their dynamic motivation and reservoir of strength

Some CLOTHES are labled "out dated" does that mean they're a religion also.

Those are just similiarities between certain sciences and certain religions, but it doesn't mean they're the same.



But there is so much variation in religion...obviously it is due to humans finding creative ways to interpret and "get along" in their respective environments....Religion is dynamic.

I agree....good point.




This is a very narrow analogy. You seem to be ignoring the variation in religion and the fact that some religions become extinct and some practices become "out-of-date" and there are various sects as well. Variation shows that people use different methods to suit them.

You're wrong.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not dwelling on it because it's a given.

Again, just because certina religions practices are out-dated...that doesn't automaticlly make it the same as science.




But as religion is not static, they go along with the popular rules to follow for their time period. Certain practices are no longer popular and so they focus on what is...they focus on the religious teachings that help them deal with their changing environment. They are allowed to do things that earlier followers of the SAME faith would have been condemned for, but due to the new environment, later followers are allowed to bypass certain rules or are able to recover from certain sins easier. Again, humans customize their religion to the changing environment.

Ok..I agree.

But neither of you have convinced me on how science can still be considered a religion.

Just because they both contain certain repeatative practices and are work on methods and procedures doesn't mean they are the same.

Black Matta

Question for you, sir. Cite me one proven method.


A proven method to burn paper.

It been proven time and time again that if you take a flame of fire and hold it under a sheet of pure paper, the paper willburn and eventuallybe consumed by the fire.

That's one proven method.

Black Matta wrote:

Religion is the new science.

Ive always thought it ainteresting that Jamicans will refer to obeah works as science/ or "a man science me".

I guess for some people the connection is all too apparent.

Timeline

A theory cannot be proven only accepted or rejected. So once an anomaly is presented that leaves room for a theory to be rejected....but until then there is "belief" in such theory and practices are based on the theory.

A theory can be proven, then it graduates to being a proven fact.




Black Matta

Hmmm. "Pure paper"??? Do you know how many types of flame and paper there are. Some woods do not burn readily. I'm sure you tried lighting a barbecue before.

There are some flames that won't even burn your hand, mouth - temperature is too low.

You'll have to "alter" you proven method a bit and come back with something more precise...

But wait a minute......

We're not talking WOOD in it's original state.

We're talking about PAPER.

Incase you don't know the difference.....

The next time you're in need of toilet paper, try rubbing your ass against a tree instead and you'll know the difference.

Untreated paper BURNS man.




Mansa

If Black Matta said "Religion is the new science"

Then he's really thrown me into a state of confusion.

First he said that science IS A religion.

Now he's saying that religion IS A science!


smoking-devilThe brutha'z too deep for me.

Ask him which one is it.

@Omaar

Actually I did Blackmatta an injustice. I said its the new science. He wrote Science is the new religion.



@Blackmatta

My previous post stands with above correction.niceone.gif.

Black Matta

You said "Pure paper". Meaningless, but I triedto make the best sense ofit I could. The wood fibres in paper are what burn.

Pure paper = paper untreated with asbestos or any other chemical that might prevent it from burning.

Anyway, I'mnot talking about wood or wood fibres (we call them "fibers" overhere), I'm talking aboutthepaper itself.

Paper burns man, it burns.



Wood that doesn't burn easily probably won't form paper that burns easily.

But we're not talking about "probably".

PROBABLYSanta Claus may come sliding through with his reindeers.

PROBABLY St. Luke will come back from the grave and send everybody to hell.

If he had wings, bull frog PROBABLY wouldn't bump his ass everytime he leaped.


The world is full of probabilities and possiblities; but it's a proven fact that paper burns.

Black Matta


"Paper burns" is a woolly statement so you can't start calling that proven fact. Scientifically you must specify the conditions which will cause it to burn.

Wool burns too...lol...



You will be hard pushed to find any such scientific data because there are far too many variables. (Paper constituents, thickness of paper, shape of paper, type of flame, accessibility to oxygen, moisture in atmosphere etc. etc. In fact I know someone who did a PhD on flames. It is still a very poorly understood phenomenon and different parts of a flame have very different temperatures).

A lot simpler is flash points of volatile liquids (the point a which they ignite under precisely stated conditions). Much simpler than your example and you will find data on this. Yet mystery of mysteries, every so often, they do not ignite. Scientists will ponder "Why didn't it ignite", like "why didn't the bomb detonate" etc. Answer, the scientific "fact" is only "statistically true". Flash point is not fact.

You're specifying conditions.

That's ok, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that paper burns when put to the flame.

You just asked for a proven method and I gave you one, but if you want to get technical about it I could pick apart your last post and make the point that words you keep using like "hard" and "simpler" are actually subjective terms of comparison and have no business in a scientific discussion.

Hard pushed as compared to what?

It would be a lot simpler by who's standards?

Gotcha now...lol...

But let us get back to your "attempt" to prove that science is a religion, and maybe that'll lead us back to the subject of ancestor worship.

Black Matta


Nay...

***shakes head***

You are being flippant. I reckon if your life depended on it you'd suddenly be a lot more specific. If it were your only means of starting a fire and signalling your whereabouts after becoming stranded on some expedition, I bet you wouldn't have asked BlackMatta for a flame maker and "pure paper".

Actually, if my life depended on it and I was tranded on an expedition I'd find some wandering tribe to hook up with, find a thick healthygirl who could cook, and chill for a spell.
Urban life is getting to be too hectic anyway.




'Cos BlackMatta would give you a flame maker for some light fuel that won't burn your hand let alone set alight the centimetre thick heavy duty papyrus with high water content I'd give you as "pure paper".

But how could itbe a "flame maker" if it doesn't make a flame?

And papyrus isn't paper it's a plant that first had to be treated to be written on.



Reproducibility is an important part of science so specifications must be as accurate as possible. Even so you cannot escape subjectivity, so no contradiction in the words I have used.
You have not yet demonstrated a fundamental difference between science and religion.


Then allow Webster to show you the difference: blkbow


SCIENCE

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>



RELIGION

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective



So science is the state of KNOWING, while religion is about commitment, devotion and faith.

Those are the fundamental differences.


Remember, this is how we fell out the last time.

Pity if you allow your pride get to you again and blind you to the science I'm dropping.

Black Matta

A good roaring magnesium flame would probably burn a hole in you in a few seconds. A methanol flame you could probably stand on your bare skin. Just because it doesn't burn you doesn't mean it's not a flame. Check some chemistry.

No thank you....not my type of subject.




What science do you know. I have studied science and I have seen scientific terms mutilated by dictionary definitions.

Regardless of that, however, my contention is the authenticity which you attribute to the white mans religion while reaching for the white mans definition of that religion. It is circular and if your bottom line is that the debate centres on the white mans definition of science and not on the actual experience of science, then we are wasting time. What experience of science do you have beyond what the white man has told you in his dictionary?

Now here we go with you trying to change the subject again.

I just showed you that science is KNOWLEDGE and I've been dropping knowledge in this thread since it's inception.

But now if you don't like the "mutilated" definitions of the white man's dictionary on the white man's religion and his definition of science.....then show me the black man's dictionary so we can discuss the black man's religion.

We can use Black Matta's Exhausting Dictionary and Thesaurus:

Professor Matta

What are you trying to teach me about the white man's scientific definitions and practices when I know a hundred times what you know about them? I have an informed opinion about them. You have none, practically by your own definition. It's that simple. So you swallow what you are told. You are just regurgitating what the media projects about science which funny enough I know already. I've been at the sharp end when journalists and science authors are putting together their stories.

"But we don't need lab coats for this, never have".

"Just put them on for the camera".

"We never wear goggles for this type of work".

"Put them on, it impresses the public. Right, if you'll just stand in front of that huge bookshelf of impressive looking scientific literature, with the test tubes and conical flask of red dye in the background, we can start the interview".

Science is the centrepiece of western religion. They lay it on heavy to impress and are very successful with it. It's actually quite a joke in their circles, scientists and journalists laughing at the likes of you who swallow their bullshit.

Omaar, I don't think you are in a position to understand what I am saying, so I will leave it there.



That was a beautiful and articulate post but unfortunately it doesn't back up anything you have said so far concerning science being a religion.

Infact, I hate to be the one to break it to you but you've just wasted you last 6 posts basically bragging about your knowledge and experience to a person who isn't impressed and really doesn't care.

Not that I have anything against you, but just being able to back up what you say instead of appearing as though you put your foot in your mouth and are now trying to smooth things over, would be enough for me.