First let me say I agree with everything you said so far, very well said. Second, your never gonna get anywhere here with that argument. Sad to say but most here will just dumb down the argument to "religion is a useless thing for ignorant people" nevermind that just about everyone that comes up with anything of importance in math/science has some idea of a "god" in their mind. From the people I've had this discussion with it seems they either get it and agree or they don't and are convinced your wrong. So basically, your right and you'll never convince anyone else. ;p There is a way to observe something that it has several different locations but are all the same object. There was an experiment a while back that the guy had a window to observe through and you could see several different "objects" but they were actually all part of the same 1 object. I wanna say he used some sort of plasma or something but honestly don't remember the process he used just that the end result was this one "spot of light" turned into several different "spots of light" (not the one/two slits with light experiment that shows the behavior of light). It was basically an experiment that proved that there is a state of matter that when viewed in a particular fashion you can't tell between 1 or several. of course this is a special case but I think eventually, once we understand it better, it will be one of those E=mc^2 type understandings. Also I love that this discussion went right to religion, when Scientific Ignorance is spread over religious and non-religious alike.
You mean like this..... Fourier transform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here's a quote.... . This is analogous to describing a musical chord in terms of the individual notes being played. It's just an application of set theory. Maybe the light experiment you were talking about what supposed to show that it has a referent in the physical world.
You're confusing the issue. Science does not undermine religion. Science undermines religion's attempts to incorporate itself into the sciences, because religion is not, nor ever will be, science. The day scientists accept anything other than experimentally and scientifically supported theories into their textbooks will be, at the heart of it, the end of science. This isn't to say people shouldn't feel free to believe whatever they chose, but beliefs are different from scientifically supported theories. Much different. That's like trying to mix Chinese food and Mexican food; both are fine to eat, but not necessarily at the same meal.
The fact that the same thread "did I overdose on pot" comes up about once a month, followed by the same idiotic responses shows that people aren't only ignorant of science, but obstinate aswell. To completely ignore medical science, ignore the definition of words, and then post the exact same bullshit over and over again shows that the education system is failing hard.
Isn't that also the definition of insanity?? And I agree, shows that the education system fails, and that people to an extent fail because many simply do not care. It's a complicated issue. "Look at the valedictorian scared of the future While I hop in the Delorean Scared-to-face-the-world complacent career student Some people graduate, but we still stupid They tell you read this, eat this, don't look around Just peep this, preach us, teach us, Jesus" -Kanye West, Good Morning
Kanye West has been quoted in a thread about science, this thread is done.\ @mrgoodsmoke: na that's not it, I tried looking for the experiment the past day or so and couldn't find anything on it. The basic idea is that there is a state that all things can be in that, depending on how you are observing it, depends on how you see it (in this case 1 looks like several and both are indistinguishable from eachother). Think of it like the single and double slit experiment for light (light acts as both a wave and particle depending on the observer) but instead of light it's an actual object that's been put into a particular state.
Science is not a biologist's belief, it is evidence found through experimentation. If it is not found, then it is a hypothesis, and you can follow the logic behind the hypothesis or not.
I never said science was a biologist's belief. I said some people need something other than the biologist belief, the idea that we live to pass our DNA down through reproduction. Abiotic genesis to evolution VS a G-d that is, was, and will be is easier for people "feel". That is the point I'm trying to communicate here. I also didn't say science undermines religion I said people who SOLELY believe in science undermine religion, and yes they do. You can see that from all the post like this That is a blatant attack on peoples faith.
And religion's attempt to incorporate itself into and control the sciences (Intelligent Design, Creationism, etc) isn't a blatant attack on the sciences? Scientists take no issue with people believing whatever they want. Any resentment between the two stems from several millenia of religion's drive to suppress scientific discovery if it doesn't parallel their beliefs.
Scientific ignorance = religion. Therefore, science cannot be a religion. This is the Science & Nature section. This whole sub-forum is a blatant attack on peoples' faith. Deal with it.
your confusing religious people that are trying to change science with a religion. I have the same faith that the people trying to push Intelligent Design and Creationism but I do not share their desire to change science to fit a religious belief. I don't know how many times people will have to say it before it finally sinks in for people but science tells the HOW, religion tells a WHY. One exists INDEPENDENT of the other. Just because some on either side haven't realized that yet doesn't mean the whole of either group has the same goal.
Actually, a lot of modern-day theorists are trying to incorporate the why-aspect into their ideas now, too. The best explanation I've come across so far is that the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. God did not create the universe, says Hawking - Yahoo! News No, we do not know what might have come before us. Neither do we know if our "universe" is just a smaller part of something bigger.. but if the majority of the scientific community's ideas are correct, then the laws of physics have been around long before our universe was ever born. This opens up discussion of many new possibilities. If the laws of physics have been around forever, could our universe merely be a chain-reaction? Could our universe stem off of an even bigger universe? If the laws of physics have truly been around forever, then something HAD to come before our universe, right? =====================^===============^======^============= Let's say the equal signs are the universe. It moves in a straight path. The first "^" is our Big Bang. Every so often, enough energy builds up to create another Big Bang, (the second and third "^") which simply stems off of the parent universe. Maybe in a different linear path, maybe in another dimension? Then, in these baby-universes, enough energy can build up to cause yet another Big Bang, which simply stems of THAT universe, making the baby-universe into a parent universe. It could be a never-ending process. The possibilities are endless. Who knows what's really going on out there.. but the reason why we are here today is simply because all things (life, matter, space-time) are created spontaneously by the laws of physics.
@gonemadwithmary That would be an example of someone trying to cross the two on their own. They try and bring one into the other and are based in just as much fact as the other side is based in religion. They are all just guessing at an answer. And the laws of physics came out of the Big Bang, not the other way around. Otherwise we wouldn't need a theory of everything to be able to describe the Big Bang fully. Also all things weren't "created spontaneously by the laws of physics", it's through physics that we know how things went about in order to get to how we are here today. Physics didn't create anything, it's through physics that we are able to understand what happened. Or the way I liked most when I heard it is,"The planet doesn't know the law of gravity, it just does it. It has no need to calculate it's orbit according to the other bodies." Sure what you said does open "up discussion of many new possibilities" but realize they are all just speculation. They are guessing at the answer as much as the pro- Intelligent Design people are. One bases it on a religion (or religious texts) and the other bases it in their science. Neither one has any information that is relevant to the answer. You may want to say the science side does have some relevance but remember, they don't yet have a way to describe our universe (from the Big Bang on). They have no idea if what we know today applies to the subject or if everything we know is actually only a tiny part that isn't really important when you know the rest of the answer. By all means speculate all you want but just keep in mind it's the same as trying to imagine what heaven looks like. On a side note, now I want to go watch some Feynman video's. I love the way he describes everything. It explains perfectly how I think of the universe and the rules everything follows.
Well, dude, in this situation it's really only one theory against another. Nothing we say is proven.. it's just one person's beliefs, for real. Sort of like religion I guess. All I know is that we learn new shit everyday. We both have a chance at being right; to deny that would be foolish. You gotta keep your mind open.
except what I said isn't like religion at all. I was talking about proven statements of facts and you were talking about the musings of scientific people. One is known to be true and will always be true the other is a "stab in the dark" by a very smart person. But now we are getting back to the point of this thread. Trying to argue with people that don't care about an answer other than the one they already know.