isn't that called Scientology?

Trying to use facts to proof or disproof something doesn't have anything to do to with religion. Scientology is considered a religion, one that I don't get at that.

The word science and the word religion can never ever be used in the same sentence to back each other up. Let alone the same class room.

Actually Havoc i think what you're doing there once again is putting your opinions as facts.

How many Christians do you know who believe in Big Bang theory? I know quite a lot, they believe that God caused it through whatever means. Thus fusing science and religion.

Now I know it's cool to be a religion basher on the internet, but come on...

The bible mentions we started "from the dust" which comes from rocks, scientists say the rocks cooled after millions of years, forming the oceans, and so on... so we came from rocks :p

Sorry to get off Topic, but Paul, your avatr looks like Abe is about to have a rectal exam.
A SELF rectal exam.

Anyway, I believe in the big bang theory, but maybe I have a different understanding then everyone else, or made it up, I'll decide later.

So, at first, everything was in a cosmic egg, maybe the size of my thumb, or by equal comparison, Havocs dick.

Suddenly, this thumb/dick sized object explodes into the universe, and everything is flung away to wherever the fuck it wants.

Oh, and Havoc, that wasn't hostility, I was just kidding, I would've put Peters, but I wasn't sure if it was my place.

yeah, that makes sense.

Not really. I'm either giving facts or I'm giving opinions, I never mix the two. I'm very careful about that, mind you. What I meant was this:

Religion is by definition the absence of science. It's the belief, blind belief, in something you hope is there but can't be totally sure off. No matter how you twist or turn it, no single belief system out there is based on facts, otherwise it wouldn't be religion anymore.

Science on the other hand is the total opposite. Science never assumes something without direct or indirect proof being there to support the theory.

Now if science comes up with the theory of the big bang, science has done it's research and concluded that the big bang is a possible scenario because many other things seem to be pointing roughly in that direction. Science is not sure, but it's a possibility given what they know. Now if religion comes along and hops on science's back and starts shouting 'our god did that! Yup! Isn't he great?!' then that's a little annoying, don't you think? I mean, it's high school 101. Instead of coming up with something of our own for a term paper, we grab something from the internet someone else already put all their hard effort in and proclaim like we did it ourselfs. It's a very loose comparison, I know, but you get the point.
Even if science one day can proof with facts that the big bang is how it all started, religion will simply go "ah yes, but without our god there wouldn't be a big bang". They don't have proof of this, they just assume it because they have been taught this their entire life. And if thats what you want to think then fine, but never should this kind of thinking be taught in science class because the two things directly contradict each other.

Think about this. If you teach creationism in a school, what you're basically telling the kids is: It doesn't matter if you have proof or not, as long as you believe it's true.

What if one of those kids grows up to be a homicide detective? :p

You seem to think I said something completely different to what I actually did.

Guess I misunderstood your post then, sorry bout that.

No it isn't. And even if it were: what on earth do you mean by that? On what level are we talking here? A religious person denies the boiling point of water?

Technically everything is impossible to prove. String "theory" is difficult to test. When they fight for it, that is debate within the scientific community, which are very common and almost always heated. You should see botanists debating the reclassification of a single species into a new genus, whoo-boy.

There is direct evidence. We have actually observed species evolving into new ones.

I would so go to that church (it would be better than that school).

We can't prove anything, but we do have those facts. How do you think we came up with the theory in the first place?

"Well Chief Inspector, I don't yet have the evidence I need to crack the case, so I propose Santa Claus came down the chimney and did it."

There is a very long paragraph after that sentence and if you would have bothered to read more then just what you need to bash me, you would have known exactly what I meant by that. But, just for you:

What I mean by that is that religion, as a system, is not based on science. There are no scientific facts in the bible that support the existence of god, there is no chapter explaining the physics of a prayer going to heaven and there is no page detailing exactly how many degrees Fahrenheit it is in Hell. The bible is a book full of nice stories on things that may or may not have happened but for which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
The foundation of religion is that it's a belief, not a world wide fact. These people BELIEVE that the bible is a true story. Just like kids BELIEVE Santa is real. If the bible would have any scientific facts, it wouldn't be religion anymore. Hence, religion is by definition the absence of science. But if you want to, go look up the term religion and the term science in the dictionary and see what it says for them. Then try to see if you can take the description for science and put it under religion, see if it still makes sense.

Incorrect! I read all of your post, and the tone of my reply wasn't actually bashful, I did just wonder what you meant. Stop constantly trying to be on top, if only for the fact I've yet to see you succeed.

Which is all under the misassumption that religion is all about the fantasy elements when quite clearly, in practice, it isn't. Yus yus, it's all tied to God at the end of it, for which there is no scientific evidence (maybe BM can back me up here, and maybe he'll give us a long word associated with it). But acts of goodness are acts of goodness. I find people's absolutist and proscriptive views of religion (for instance, 'it isn't pick and choose, you know!') somewhat disheartening (heh!).

It isn't just like: I am a religious person, here's the part where I have my feet planted in the dirt, and here, here's where I believe in giant fairies wot live in my eyeballs.

There are scientists who are religious, who see science and marvel at the work of God. Fact. One you know, but it is fact. :)

It has a valid place. Evolution theory leaves a nice blank space about how the protocell developed; essentialy how life began, what the first cells evolved FROM.

Well, we don't have any proof that the protocell existed, so it's as valid a theory as any other.

That is belief. Belief is not science. Science is theory, where the theory is accepted until either disproved (which won't happen until we find out where the protcell came from) or another theory that better fits the evidence is found (evolution has done this in the opinion of most scientists).

It is one theory present in biology on how life began. That is all. It should be taught and if used as an answer may be given marks. However, the idea of a "Creator" or "Designor" does not mean "God" (i.e. Jehovah, Jesus' father, Allah). It could have been someone else.


Now, that's the way my responce should be, since I'm learning chemical and pharmacutical sciences and have a little basis in biology and physics.

Here's where the US went wrong:

+ You CANNOT force a group of scientists to accept one theory. Theories are only based on observable evidence, or assumptions based on observations. Saying "This is the truth" is not science, unless it can be proved without the observer or assumption being required.

+ You CANNOT rule all other theories false unless you find a far better theory that can be backed up and that explains the faults in the older theories. This is why E = mc^2 is still accepted even though it is inacurate.

+ You cannot allow religious belief to affect science. This, however, swings both ways. religion and science are 2 different things, but both require belief. I follow the belief that, for example, electrons are wave particals. This could easily be wrong. I follow the belief that a piece of quartz in my pocket benifits me in some way. This could easily be wrong.

Final word: Science should not attack religious beliefs and religion should not attack scientific theory.


----
Just because you can't be sure it's there does not make it blind belief. There's a piece of quartz in my pocket. It makes me feel better when I feel bad. That may be a phycosomatic affect but it does not change my belief. And my belief is not blind since I can perceive the affect of the quartz. It is not scientific (to me it's metaphysical, literally "Beyond Physics"), but it is not blind belief.

Of course, anyone can say "That's stupid and can't possibly be true" and I'll accept that. I know what quartz is made of and how it interacts with matter. I know how my body interacts with its surroundings. I know that crystal should really have no effect.
But, I also know compressing quartz causes an electrical charge. I know electrical charges induce a magnetic field, and visa-versa. Therfore, EM radiation (photons) are being emmited by holding the quartz in my hand. EM raditation and magnetic fields have documented affects on people, so maybe my quartz can have some minor effect. There may be a scientific (as opposed to phychological) reason why my quartz makes me feel better.

That post is full of bad science.

This is not surprising, since the theory of evolution is NOT, I repeat NOT about how life began in ANY way.

I refer you to the definition of scientific theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

This is good. Except for the "protocell" thing, which is a hypothesis.

It is nothing like a theory.

But they're not fooling anyone. ID is creationism repackaged to exclude direct Biblical references, because they failed to get creationism taught. Case in point: The textbook proposed by ID supporters, Of Pandas and People was shown to be a reprint of a book of the same name, with the words "creationism" and "God" replaced by "Intelligent Design" and "the designer" respectively. Nothing else had been altered. Oops.

Nothing can be proven, since proof exists only in mathematics.

Theories are only considered false if they have been falsified. Until then, Occam's Razor is employed, in that the simplest explanation that takes into account all of the observed facts is considered to be the best one. There are hardly any such examples of such competing theories currently in modern science (at least, none that many people will have heard of).

Science cannot require belief. The moment you invoke anything that requires anything more than observation, you have left science. That electrons are considered to have wave-particle duality is purely a product of their observed behaviour, and is part of quantum physics. I do not recommend tackling anything with the word "quantum" in it. It's weird, but since when was it selectively advantageous to have brains that can easily comprehend non-determinability?

QTF

We cannot be absolutely sure of anything. Technically. But if it is not based upon observation and is a testable principle then it is faith.

That is classic psychosomatic medicine. You perceive an effect that you assume to be the quartz, but that does not make it so. Quartz is piezoelectric, yes, but so is bone (due to the presence of apatite crystals) but leaning on my arm doesn't make me feel better. Though there is a hypothesis (that word again!) that these electromagnetic fields stimulate bone growth. The electromagnetic field generated by quartz is minuscule, and far from your brain. Any energy carried by the field is lost exponentially. You don't have anything to back up your particular explanation for the effect experienced, and you can devise no test that will test only your hypothesis, not the simpler one (psychosomatic) which Occam's Razor dictates we use for now. I'm not saying that your explanation is impossible, but when there has been no further investigation your preference for your hypothesis is indeed faith.

*spanked by the off-topic fairy*

It's not really a science, it's more of a belief.
Same with gravity.

The whole point I was trying to make is that if ID decided to say "God made the protocell" it would be as valid a hypothesis since it's a bit simpler than an oily bilayer with water and other elements inside spontaneously living. It's easier to understand and does not violate on of the key doctrines of biology, that "life does not come spontaneously from non-life".

This I also accept. Math is the only truth since numbers don't change and are completely devoid of the need of an observer (3 is 3, even if your not looking at it the right way).


String theory vs. "classical" quantum mechanics re the graviton.
...yeah, I see your point.


Exactly. But, since only math has proof and everything else is theory or hypothesis, how can I use theory to explain things scientifically? Surely I have to assume the theory is true. I have to accept/believe the theory. Or, I have to assume it is not true and find a new theory/belief.
I would say accepting any scientific theory as "true" is believing science. Not accepting new theories which go against the old ones occurs where scientists hold beliefs (best example: Einstein and quantum mechanics)

Fail. The idea that I science should force people to accept it is just as stupid as the idea that creationists should force people to accept ID. Leave faith alone, unless it's being forced down your throat or into your kids.


True, but simple experimentation will show ME that the quartz needs to be there for any affect to be perceived. The assumption appears valid. The Null Hypothesis that "Quartz helps" is held.
Again, it is impossible for this to be considered science. As you said yourself, it is "faith". The idea I was trying to get across is that it is not blind faith. A colour-blind person may believe the sky is green. This would not be based on blind faith, but their personal observation. In both cases the observation may be flawed, but the belief (which by definition isn't science-based, but more based on observation) is based on SOMETHING. It is not blind faith.
People who say they've spoken to Jesus might honestly believe they have (and since you weren't there you can't be sure they have not, even though it's extremely unlikely). They do not need blind faith if they think (or have) spoken to a higher power calling itself JC.


Um... gravity exists. It's observable, calculable (to a degree) and we've a reasonable idea that it's caused by matter. The nitty-gritty stuff (i.e. the graviton) is still heavily theory {there's 2 big competing theories at least right now}. It is not a belief... unless you choose to believe one of the theories over a different one... or if you believe it's a pulling force, since it appears to be more of a pushing one.

It's QFT not QTF

Quote... the fuck?

Thought about this alot more when I was much younger, but not less complex at all, being a demented little git.

The main (possibly only) thought of mine back then about Adam and Eve, Noah etc. was "So where are the Dinosaurs?"

Obviously I can think of many other problems now (Adam + Eve = Inbreeding = Whole population gets cancer = Death, as well as the fact they only had two sons...wtf) with those ideas. Religiously, I think ( as in this is 'official') that those older bible stories were a rough way of illustrating how God created things to the people of the time...though I'm still not sure. And that still wouldn't make much sense whatsoever.

The particular areas of the bible observed in this particular argument are among those parts of the bible which have the most holes in, making them completely and utterly wrong...

Main topic: Not fact. That's all we need to know.
When I think about it, how on earth do the teachers in these schools manage to teach Creationism scientifically anyway? It's a physical impossibility. I'd like to see a lesson.

You don't get cancer from inbreeding. You do get large amounts of mutations from a lack of genetic diversity which might result in more cancer... or genetic abnormalities resulting in death. There's an alternative story that God created other people as well, that he started with Woman which failed then tried again with Adam. Still, it's all pretty metaphorical.

If that true, lulz... and sry for flipping out.

Havoc: The difference would be "quoted for truth" and "quit talking, fag".
Reminds me of when 4chan "censored" FTW into SUCKS!

Kay then, show me proof.

But it does violate the key doctrine of science, which is falsifiability. Also, no one is suggesting that life spontaneously came from anything. The main point of abiogenesis hypotheses is to explain how non-living organic matter can gradate towards living structures. Invoking spontaneity is not an explanation.

That's not exactly what I meant, but, yeah. I was thinking of mathematical proofs.

Proof does not exist, but evidence does! Evidence is what supports theories, but evidence is also what theories are explanations of.

We only accept any scientific as true until such time as it is shown to be otherwise. If it were faith then we would be certain of it, but scientifically speaking, we can never be certain. This is another case of a commonly used word having a different meaning in the scientific context.

Scientists are going to support theories based upon their own research. Sometimes different observations contradict earlier ones. This is when science undergoes one of its changes, it is why we have debates, it is why we repeat each other's experiments, it is why we have peer-reviews. It is when we try to solve the problem and come out with greater understanding of the particular field. This is what Einstein was doing when he searched for a Unified theory to reconcile the physics of the very large with the physics of the very small. He failed, and we now know that we cannot so easily do away with quantum physics. He was also old and a human being. People make mistakes! Again, that is why so many people are involved in the scientific method.

I ballsed that one up. I meant QFT.
Cool.

Which corresponds to the psychosomatic effect. If it is your belief that the quartz has the effect that actually creates the effect, of course it will only work when the quartz is there. You are as much the subject of the experiment as the quartz, and it does not do to be the subject of your own psychological investigation. You'd also need a placebo as a control, and for that to work you need to be unaware of the placebo (that was a peer-review of your experiment).

There may be an observation, but the explanation is indeed faith. We've all seen the Westboro Church claim that various deaths are somehow God's wrath for lax attitudes towards homosexuality. The observation exists (the deaths actually happened) but the explanation is completely unfounded, is not testable, defies all logic etc. This is where science deviates from faith- not at the observation, but at the explanation.

You cannot say that they have nor that they haven't. Not falsifiable, not science, faith. Again.

The effect of masses attracting other masses is an observation, and effect. Gravity and the explanations of of it are theory. It behaves as an attractive force.

Proof does not exist! Only observational evidence!

Then I refuse to believe that it's proven!

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

I don't know... It's getting slightly into belief/faith (which is understandable) and slightly off-topic (which always happens).

And Nemo, if you're taking that attitude you will have to reject pretty much all science (since no matter how observably correct a theory is, it's still a theory) and rely purely on logic and mathematics to survive.

Actually, Creationism technically is a science, or sciences and religeon can be grouped together, as they are both explanations we use to explain.
Actually, we accept that nearly all science we know is wrong, in fact, that's the point, we keep on trying to get closer to the truth, by presenting more accurate theories with our increasing technoligies.
Take ancient science, when they thought the earth was the center of the galaxy/ universe, technically this was influenced by religeon (Even though it is never mentioned in the bible, so then again, technically it isn't) , but it was still science, and as proved, wrong, yet they thought and believed it was right at the time.
I don't think the theory of evolution is a complete load of crap, maybe mostly crap, but not completly, and that's becuase in how diverse things have become, how things have such design, and yet the similarites are astonishing with say a dolphin to a shark (You could say this is becuase they have adapted, but becuase the process is random, then why the hell are they so alike? Shouldn't there be much more different forms that are just as efficient).
For me the theory of evolution is full of wholes, like the theory that the universe can fold and through worms wholes we can go through the middle, the big bang theory has a few holes, but it seems more believable than the other previous two theories.
Never the less, I believe God created the universe, he could of created the big bang, and is behind the evolution and such, but I just can't believe this is all random.
Oh, and Science still hasn't come up with an answer on how to create life, and seems very far off, so Religeon is as real as Science if not more IMO.
Even if it did, that wouldn't even prove that our Religeons (Well Christianity, I'm not going to speak for the others ones becuase I don't know them that well) would be false.

It's called convergent evolution. Similar results have come about, partly through chance, and as presumably, more primitive designs happened to have similar adaptations earlier on, and eventually resulted in the same design. The process of evolution works through the species with better adaptations usually surviving. Sharks evolved an excellent design very early on, long before the dinosaurs, and thus it has changed relatively little over all this time, as it still functions very well in our modern times as it did back then. Dolphins evolved far more recently, and from completely different ancestors, that were originally land living mammals, but evolved similar traits (flaps of skin became fins, etc.), and so became their current form. Sharks and dolphins have more differences than similarities to each other, however.

No, Creationism is not a science because it does not conform to scientific requirements, as I have explained.

Pretty close. We accept scienctific theories as being the best current explanation for the applicable natural phenomenons based upon the available evidence.

I guess, but then we have a prime example of the modern scientific method in action.

The input is random, the process and output are not. Do not forget natural selection (that is the part that Darwin contributed after all). Similarities from convergent evolution are astonishing, but so are the differences retained. The fusiform shape is really the only body shape that works for pelagic organisms (we even use it for submarines). Most aquatic body shapes are variations of this design, from plesiosaurs through eels to squid.

The argument from personal incredulity is about as watertight as a sponge.

No one believes it is all random. Do you understand evolution at all?

Not so far off as you think, actually. Besides, it is better to acknowledge our ignorance and then actively try to do something about it, than to embrace our ignorance and choose the first "explanation" that comes by regardless.

No it would not. Well, it would cause more problems for fundies, but since when did they care what science has discovered?

Yes I do.

Listen, people. Jesus loves you. Denying him and his glory will only cause you an eternity of pain. Return his love and joy will follow you all the days of your life.