What Book Are You Reading?

'A Storm of Swords' by George R.R. Martin. (If you like Fantasy, you HAVE TO READ THIS SERIES (A game of Thrones is the first in the series, DO IT!!!)

'God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?' By John Lennox, a book which desects popular sciences attempts to disprove God with equally disprovable theories (Not specifically evolution, though Intelligent Design is a big part of it). It's a pretty awesome book, and not overly technical.

Since when does popular science attempt to disprove God, ever?

Science doesn't exist to disprove God; science exists to explain what man knows (and thus explore wha the does not know).

I think what he means is when some scientists go too far in their stance on non-provable theory versus empirical science. I may be wrong....

Theories are always technically just speculation in everyday language, but in science, have been tested again and again that they sustain enough evidence (fact) to become (and remain) theories.

So "non-provable theory" doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to harp. I was raised in a household of science. I get offended when people go, "Oh scientists!! Peh!! They hate God, are stupid (for their stupid Ph.Ds) and don't believe in Intelligent Design) and ya ya."

Theory, in science, is something - a set of facts so well established researched and tested- that explains the phenomena of the world and in nature. Theories (ie, Relativity, Gravity) are used to formulate new theories and mathematical equations.

ID isn't a theory.

Nor is it empirical data. That's the stuff that academia uses...stats, more or less.



I get ruffled with language sometimes. :blushing: :blushing: :blushing:


ANYWAY! Slaughterhouse-Five was much better than Cat's Cradle.

Sorry, you're absolutely right.. I shouldn't have used "non-provable" (the problem with writing too fast and not thinking things out...) What I shouldn't have used "theory" either, but "ideas." I think the most important thing is to keep an open mind.

My mouth is on fire from eating crushed red pepper on my carrots mmmmmmmmm oooooooooh aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ! !

Well I don't want to go round and round but in science, what is not provable is, I guess, an idea, and what is provable is a theory because theories have been tested and tested again. Science isn't truth.

ID is not a theory, nor is it really science, because it's not testable, but it can make for pretty poetry.

anny
wayyy

Theory in English language is idea, speculation, etc. It's different in science. So when people say, "Well evolution is just a THEORY," it gives the wrong impression.

Re: Chaos. Science is order, not chaos, and if you want, we can get into physics because by "chaos" I assume you mean the discovery that the universe is expanding?

Re: Mud. That actually becomes the basis of half the book. He he.

Re: Holocaust. Yes, definitely an appetite suppresant.

HOLY MOLY I NEED WATER!!

*sigh*

I am so torn about commenting on this....I wish I just hadn't even put down that I was reading it.

*takes deep breath*

It's so hard not to get drawn into a debate when you feel so strongly about these things.

I guess, what I should say is, no, I'm not a stupid redneck that can't appreciate science for what it is.

No, I'm not saying that all scientists are opposed to Intelligent Design, or the prospect of one.

No, I'm not so hardheaded and close minded to forego science in favor of myth.

Yes, I do appreciate hard facts.

*Ok, I just wrote a huge paragraph concerning my thoughts and feelings on this, but you know, my love for this community outweights my desire to be 'right'. So in the interests of keeping this thread on track, let me just say, yes, I am an old world Intelligent Design proponet. I apologize if my choice of words wasn't what you wanted to hear. I didn't feel that semantics were all that important given the topic was , 'What book are you reading'. I told what I was reading and gave a recommendation to those who might share an interest in it. I didn't tell that to subtley insert a religous debate. So without further ado, allow the thread on books continue. I'm out.*

-J

Does People Magazine count????? :laugh:

Nor is it empirical data. That's the stuff that academia uses...stats, more or less.


I get ruffled with language sometimes. :blushing: :blushing: :blushing:

Nor is it empirical data. That's the stuff that academia uses...stats, more or less.


I get ruffled with language sometimes. :blushing: :blushing: :blushing:

:laugh: By "empirical" science I meant this: (which I'm sure you already know, as you are a very smart cookie and fun to talk to)

empirical
Adjective
derived from experiment, experience, and observation rather than from theory or logic:(Dictionary.com)

There are empirical sciences, and there are sciences that are not empirical. i.e. astrophysics is an empirical science versus social sciences (but even that is being debated at this point)

We probably should start a different thread on this, because it's fun to talk about and is really off the subject of what we're reading this summer.

Okay! (to a new thread)

I just hold that ID Isn't scienitific theory because it doesn't follow the laws of scientific practice in terms of what is and isn't theory.

And I still think that "empirical" does not allow for theology debates IF ID only hits one of two basic requirements for empirical science: one, that natural phenomenon and two: that it must be testable and verifiable.

:PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

he he he