sfu

I don't need to do a search. We have not proven the age of the universe. What some scientist says it is, may be based on research and math and whatever else, but its still a theory.

Kind of like when they look at a star in space and then tell us what that star is made of. They do not know, they are guessing, based on other things we do know. But its still only a guess. What it is made of can't be proven without going to that star and testing it, which has not been done.

Never mind, wealth IS bad. But that is because humans are bad.

Are there any assumptions made, in the determination of the age of the universe? I'm pretty sure there are. If so, then it has not yet been proven and its a theory.

No, what I meant was, that two religions can be contradictory based on just one belief. Depends on the belief though.

We know the age of the universe? Please, that's ridiculous. We don't know, we have done math, and made guesses. If we have an age for it, it's just a theory.

Wether Jesus was referring to the gate or not kind of doesn't matter, since it was followed with the comment “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Basically meant a rich man could never do it on his own.

Yeah, I think both religion and science have taken a back seat to just plain ol' greed and power.

Great wealth corrupts people. Jesus did say that even rich people can be saved though. But only with the power of God.

Perfect example.

1. The rich man loved his wealth more.
2. "And Jesus, looking at him, loved him..." He didn't whip him and tell him to leave, he loved him.

"But religions aren’t like that" Yeah, some religions are like that.

Well, religion is based on faith and history (but at a certain point falls back on faith since you aren't there in the past), and science should be based on empirical evidence. So both realms can't operate exactly the same, although they can cross over.

Many people do research on many faiths, and their research convinces them that a particular one is correct. They can live the rest of their life believing that particular faith is correct, and stick with it, even if they are open to being proven wrong.

And with science, if you actually prove something true, you do not have to act as though you have not. Now, if you only have a theory, then yes, you should be questioning it until it can be proven. I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we "know".

*"Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world... is not something modern science event attempts at." * -Well, that there is the problem. And if that's the case, and modern scientists believe this, then why are they always talking about something as if they know it for a fact?

"Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false." -Well, he is wrong, of course you can prove things to be true.

If you're science is replaced, then you never proved anything, and should not speak as if you know for sure what you are talking about. But modern scientists talk this way all the time.