The limitation of both science and religion due to biology.

[Native]

You´re generally talking of "science" and you should know that even modern cosmological science is talking of "99.999 % gas and 0.001 % dust" in cosmos from where we all are made, but in your religious/mythical ignorance you fail to make the logical connection between ancient and modern terms of formation/creation as the religious/mythical term "mud" stands for the modern cosmological term "dust". More "mythical mud-informations" for you to read here.

What you are incapable of understanding is that you cannot turn dust instantly into human being, like magic.

It isn´t me who speaks of "magical and instant dust formation". It´s your own unreflected litterally interpretation of the Creation Stories where you forget to use your comparative and analythical skills and then just claim it all to be "weird craps".

It took your parents 9 months to form you from particles=dust or "clay" and gaseous molecules. It took the Solar System 4.6 bill. years to form to its actual stage from gas and dust It took 13.5 bill. years to form the Milky Way to its actual appearance from gas and dust. So everything have its own time to devellop in cosmos.

Dusts don’t just turn into cells.

Of course not. Cells are generally made by particles and watery molecules and it´s all governed by electromagnetism - you know: Just like in the Egyptian Ogdoad Story of Creation where the Atum-Ra (E&M) LIGHT creates everything in our galaxy from gas and dust

So really, you don’t know what you are talking about.

If so, you likewise don´t know what your talking about since you simply ignores the ancient text before you take your time to analyse it and compare it with modern terms and modern theories. As said before:

With your own description, it is your analythic and comparative skills which is "weirdly crapped" by your religious/mythical ignorance and general denial mode.

 

[Native]

Science is about how we humans can interact with certain aspects of the world. Not what the world really is.
Agree or disagree?

On the other hand, "the world" i.e. "how the nature is", determines how humans can interact individually and collectively. These conditions are described in ancient myths/religions and described in several modern scientific areas from microcosm to macrocosm both spiritually and physically.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No error in my thinking here is where I go Karl Popper, and you may go your way with Kant.

Okay.
So let us test that. There are no error in your thinking. What about my thinking? Is there error in mine? Well, yes, at least some people would say that.
Here is how it works with science according to them. There is an error in my thinking. My thinking is nothing but processes in my brain. That can be observed with science and thus it is real, a fact and true of the world that I am in error.
So here it is. It is a fact that I can do an error in my thinking as a part of how the world works.

So now you only have to show that I really can't do it, but you can't because your argument rests on that it is true, real and a fact that I have an error in my thinking. That works just fine for me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay.
So let us test that. There are no error in your thinking. What about my thinking? Is there error in mine? Well, yes, at least some people would say that.

Here is how it works with science according to them. There is an error in my thinking. My thinking is nothing but processes in my brain. That can be observed with science and thus it is real, a fact and true of the world that I am in error.
So here it is. It is a fact that I can do an error in my thinking as a part of how the world works.

Errors in thing??? No one can claim no errors in their thinking. This a rather obtuse.

No this is not how it works with science according to science. The bold is not how science works. A fact is simply an objective physical observation of our physical existence, and not how science works. Read Karl Popper.

You only have to show that I really can't do it, but you can't because your argument rests on that it is true, real and a fact that I have an error in my thinking. That works just fine for me.

Self indulgent thinking. Please, let's get back to the subject of the thread if you want to continue.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Errors in thing??? No one can claim no errors in their thinking. This a rather obtuse.

No this is not how it works with science according to science. The bold is not how science works. A fact is simply an objective physical observation of our physical existence, and not how science works. Read Karl Popper.



Self indulgent thinking. Please, let's get back to the subject of the thread if you want to continue.

Yes, it is all a part of the world. Including that I can do life differently than you. All a part of the Laws of Nature.
These words are physical in my brain and a part of our physical existence, unless I am non-physical.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it is all a part of the world. Including that I can do life differently than you. All a part of the Laws of Nature.
These words are physical in my brain and a part of our physical existence, unless I am non-physical.

No you cannot do life differently than me, but of course, you can make different decisions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No you cannot do life differently than me, but of course, you can make different decisions.

Correct and thank you for standing by that.

 

[Native]

Please, let's get back to the subject of the thread if you want to continue.

Eh, what was the OP subject really? It was:

"The limitation of both science and religion due to biology".

How can "biology" make limitations in science and religion? And if so, does it concern all areas in science and all religions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eh, what was the OP subject really? It was:

"The limitation of both science and religion due to biology".

How can "biology" make limitations in science and religion? And if so, does it concern all areas in science and all religions?

Because of in the end the replication of the fittest gene. The cause and effect of that runs through time and space in you and makes it so that making sense of everything happens in you. It is subjective.
We can go through it and how that relates to metaphysics and other beliefs about what the world is.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Eh, what was the OP subject really? It was:
"The limitation of both science and religion due to biology".
How can "biology" make limitations in science and religion? And if so, does it concern all areas in science and all religions?

Because of in the end the replication of the fittest gene. The cause and effect of that runs through time and space in you and makes it so that making sense of everything happens in you. It is subjective.
We can go through it and how that relates to metaphysics and other beliefs about what the world is.

I agree in the evolutional process in genes - but WHAT makes the spiral structure of DNA and it´s genetic molecules? And what influences the genes? And how is a knowledge of genes possibly reflected in cosmological science and in the religious heritage?

Have you heard of Bruce Lipton? Otherwise take a look here: