Is there an irreconcilable difference between science and theology? Why/why not?

[greylorn]

Dang…you seem kind harsh, Greylorn. I’m a big-boy but I gotta say, using such words as: **absurd, dumb, nits, and nonsense **when addressing people of good-will who are discussing a topic of interest…dang, man. You could be kinder and still get your point across.

re: the time-independence of thermoldynamics.; I think that is debatable. Within our universe’s spacetime, sure, definately. Prior to the beginning of the universe, (Big Bang or otherwise) it’s anybody’s guess. BTW, I think Big Bang can be a plausable theory with or without God; similar, but not sine quo non.

Whether God is the prime-mover or something else, I think “before” the universe,
matter and energy, time and space must not have existed, and therefore, neither did any laws which would govern them.

Lastly, I quote Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, “Don’t call me stupid.”

Glennonite

Perhaps your life offers plenty of time for political correctness. Mine does not. I am tired of it, and prefer straight-up talk. A dumb idea is a dumb idea. I don’t have the energy to invent a cozy, ameliorating name for stupidity.

You’ll note that none of my straight-up adjectives were directed to you.

I’ve learned that being kind to confused people utterly fails to get their attention and leaves them more confused, believing that they’ve said something coherent. Given time you will learn the same.

The time independence of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics is contained in their formal expression, and is not debatable, unless one debates with someone who has not taken a serious physics course and does not know what the laws actually are. You appear to be in that category, so let us not debate these ideas.

You do not even bother to use the excellent CAF spell checker on big words, which is generally an indication that you should be conversing with those who admire sloppy writing.

As best I can tell, your opinions are derived from an absence of knowledge. Is that suitably nicer than saying, from complete ignorance of the subject? Hope so. In any case, I see no point in engaging this conversation any further.

In your final comment you quote an indifferent actor, in a boring comedy which wasn’t funny, speaking lines written by someone else which he had to memorize and rehearse, instead of speaking for yourself. Okay— What is it again that I should not call you? And what is an appealing alternative word?

 

[Glennonite]

"

The time independence of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics is contained in their formal expression, and is not debatable, unless one debates with someone who has not taken a serious physics course and does not know what the laws actually are. You appear to be in that category, so let us not debate these ideas.

You do not even bother to use the excellent CAF spell checker on big words, which is generally an indication that you should be conversing with those who admire sloppy writing.

As best I can tell, your opinions are derived from an absence of knowledge. Is that suitably nicer than saying, from complete ignorance of the subject? Hope so. In any case, I see no point in engaging this conversation any further.

"

Oh, now I get it; that’s very clear. You’re good at explaining your points.

I guess if the only tool in your box is a hammer, then you tend look at every situation as a nail. Thanks for the multiple poundings; I now totally agree with your views. No need to respond.

Glennonite