|
| Thread: Science Vs. Religion |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
posted October 22, 2002 07:04 AM |
|
|
I found a great example of science and religion working together... (kinda scary)
Bush Jr.  and Bush Senior  both very scary religious people. (honestly dont know where he comes off saying atheists cant be patriots but whatever) baby bush has the ability to let loose one(there are many more) of the biggest destructive forces that science has revealed to us 
Bush sees all enemies of him are "evil" I wonder how far his delusions of granduer will take him :/
____________
I guess with my way thinking I would be going to hell. Good thing I dont believe in it.
|
|
AzureMajesty
Promising
Adventuring Hero
Gaea Mother Earth
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 05:59 PM |
|
|
In my church, this discussion comes up quite regularly. We discuss Both Creation and Science (evolution) are both religious views. Religious in the fact that both are a way of Faith. Any concept regarding origins is not scientific, in that origins were not and cannot be observed, repeated or verified. Scientists can only deal with present evidence.
The choice of which theory to accept becomes a matter of faith. To accept something without evidence requires faith. Hebrews 11:1-3 states, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”
Christians believe that God created the universe, life and man, while the Evolutionist believes that the universe, life and man somehow evolved without any supernatural direction. “Evolution cannot be proved or tested, it can only be believed.” Considering the majesty, beauty and complexity of the earth and universe, it is relatively easy to believe in Creation. Since evolution cannot be observed, repeated or verified, it is no more “scientific” and no less “religious” than Creation.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 06:04 PM |
|
|
The one major problem I have with evolution is the small time period it took to develop an Ape into a man when there is precious little Genetic difference between the two and yet the two species, despite the intelligence of many apes are poles apart. One thing though Azure, I can see where you are coming from on this, but Evolution is not the only solution offered by science for the existence of the world or life, but a piece of science's explanations.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tuapui
Famous Hero
Poetic Psycho Baby BlackDragon
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 06:16 PM |
|
|
Why don't you have an option that is hate all science teachers and absolutely love going to church and meeting the gals?
____________
 <<<Hy
peractive  Do not touch.
Highly Psychotically Poetic.
|
|
AzureMajesty
Promising
Adventuring Hero
Gaea Mother Earth
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 06:29 PM |
|
|
I agree with you PH. There are many theories to the the creation of the earth, heavens and galaxies. BIG BANG, THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD, THEORY OF EVOLUTION, SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD
To me, Faith in God can be explained something like this:
Christians are like children, when we are in doubt of something as a child, we turn to our “parent” and ask them when/why/how/where. We accept their answer unconditionally. This is how we believe in god, unconditionally.
Scientist ask the same questions when/why/how/where, but they can not accept the answers given to them unless they can see it in black and white.
My problem in believing that we evolved from apes is this: "If humans involved from apes, why do apes no longer evolve into humans?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 06:50 PM |
|
|
I have that same problem with trusting to evolution the ape-man theory, but with a few hundred or thousand years more science, we may ourselves through genetic manipulation be capable of reproducing such affects. If for an example an Alien species for whatever reason had reached the earth and decided (again dunno why but....) that with their technology they could create sentient life from the species available to them, that could explain the short period and massive leap. I think it's clear something made that alteration, but what that something is will be forever up to debate.
Also I kinda meant that evolution is linked with and cannot exist without many of the other aspects such as Big bang etc. Religion tends towards leaving explanations to the works of a divine god, and most things can be explained by such an answer. Science tends to try and find rational answers based on facts and questioning. Sure it questions faith, but science has contributed hugely to furthering humanity. To allow it to be blinkered or tied down by religion claiming some things should not be looked into due to them being the nature of god would have left us in the stone age.
Oh and I don't mean you do wish that, but many religious people in the past and present are far too happy with the "Faith" solution in all things and this had sometimes lead to stangant science due to a lack of will to investigate something.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 08:57 PM |
|
|
Alien Planting is another theory how "man" came to be on earth around when the pyramids were said to date. I am semi partial to this belief. I mean I just cant believe as the Universe is infinite(its probably not infinite we just cant grasp the size of it in our terms so we call it just that "infinite") that we are the ONLY sentient beings.
However i dont believe its aliens (atleast the typical kind most people think of when they hear the term. green/gray/bulbous head/Huge eyes etc...) I just think probably was homo-sapiens that landed here or crash landed whatever. Thus some of the things that look impossible to build for a new species(man) were very probable. Technology was forgotten simply because they did not have the resources here to reproduce it. So we are left with some of the last things they built and have a dificult time disecting it.
I know many people would call me a quack but its alot easier to believe in this than a "ONE" god or the man somehow evolved from apes. As I stated before GOD if existed in the sense that many people believe in would not allow worshipping of any kind other than himself. GOD seems to have alot of pride so why would he want to destroy something that he created?
____________
I guess with my way thinking I would be going to hell. Good thing I dont believe in it.
|
|
johnsone79
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 09:27 PM |
|
|
Boy, so much to catch up on.
I'll start out by saying I'm a graduate student studying biological and chemical systems. Therefore, you will know the perspective I am coming from, since much of what we believe and think derives from our perspective.
First I'd like to address the issue of science as a way of finding absolute truth. As I have continued deeper into scientific studies I have found fewer and fewer true scientists that believe this. The more you understand about how research is done and how questions are approached, you find that science is the art of modelling. A scientist develops a model of how he thinks things work. Then he tests it to see if it holds. After enough testing any model will be proven wrong. Then a new model is developed with that new observation in mind, which the scientist hopes is closer to the truth than the previous model. Models are continuously updated as more observations proving the previous one wrong are made. Science cannot find truth because it is based on developing a theory and then proving it wrong. There is no scientific way to prove that something occurs in a certain way.
It was believed for a long time in Europe that all swans were white. Then someone took a trip to Australia and saw white swans. Oops, those scientists messed up. For many years Newton's laws of gravity were believed. They seemed to describe it perfectly. You can even predict a flight to the moon with his laws of gravity. Then Einstein came along and others with more accurate measurement techniques and outerspace in which to experiment and they developed relativity (which includes a description of gravity differing from Newtons granted not by much). Oops, something that seemed so absolutely right from all observations was wrong. Science does not give you truth. It only tells you what is not true and provides models that hopefully can be used even if they are not absolutely true. Scientists must have faith that there models approximate truth.
Secondly, the whole evolution thing. Although it is only theory there is extremely strong evidence supporting evolution. Remember, evolution only means change in organisms over time. The theory of evolution does not explain how it happens.
Now, many people have tried to develop models of how that change occurs, most notably Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Now I will address specific points brought up about the study of evolution and various bits of evidence. Periodic rapid changes in the fossil records have been observed. The idea that evolution is a constant force has long been discounted. It is currently believed that little amounts of change occur over long periods of time because most niches are filled and there is a wide diversity of organisms filling the ecosystem. Occasionally for whatever reason (Meteors, loss of coastal regions due to continents drifting together, etc.) there is a mass extinction of many different organisms. This opens up a large number of different environments that can be taken advantage of and organisms rapidly evolve into them, but once they are filled evolution slows because it is harder to break into a niche that someone else already is occupying than to enter an empty niche.
The idea of radioactive dating and other systems being absolute because of the constant decay is also flawed. On the most basic level decay is random within a range. Because it is random, although predictably random, it is not possible to give precise dating. It is good to give you a ball park of a few thousand to a few million years depending on how long ago it was, but it is not perfect. Also you are assuming that the constant decay observed today was always the same constant rate. I agree that it is unlikely, but since we did not observe the rate of decay one million years ago we do not know that it was the same rate as today. That is one of the limitations of science. If you obey its principles to the letter you cannot extrapolate to times unobserved.
I'll finish off with my own view of the religion and then religion vs. science. I am faithless and therefore agnostic. In the modern world most everyone knows about religion and the idea of God, heaven, and hell (or equivalent for other religions). One must have faith to believe in these. But in knowing about heaven and hell you must have faith that God truly does not exist to be an atheist. Since, there is no way to prove or disprove God, you are making a leap of faith that your atheism will not put you in Hell for eternity. I also don't by the argument that horrible events in history can be used as proof that God doesn't exist. Supposedly God gave man free will. If he were to prevent Hitler from orchestrating the Holocaust or to prevent the near eradication of the native americans he would have to intervene in human decisions. Therefore, he would be taking away our free will. With free will comes the ability to decide to do good or to decide to do evil.
Science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. The more I learn about the complexity of biological systems the more it amazes me and the harder it is for me to envision it happening all from random chance. If it was random chance, what amazing set of physical laws made that possible. What are the chances that in the big bang those exact laws were created. Of course, if those conditions hadn't happened I wouldn't be here to observe and say what is the chance. Now my head is starting to hurt and your probably tired of reading my insanity, so I better stop.
____________
|
|
falcon
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 09:35 PM |
|
|
I vote your theory, or science. i was raised under somewhat strict religion, and i simply don't believe that a super being exists and could create everything in 7 days. i think science is right, they just need to finish up their work. how come some of the places in the bible, there isn't evidence of their existence? like the garden? its imposible to COMPLETELY destroy every piece, as dinosaur's bones were found, and other really historic stuff. science just needs a few more links to prove that evolution does take place. well your last theory sounds good, but i don't know if i could completely follow it. maybe these beings were "lesser" in society and didn't have much knowledge or technology or anything of that sort to really know what they were doing.
____________
Master of the Fireguards
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 04:07 AM |
|
Edited By: bort on 22 Oct 2002
|
The Theory of Evolution
Good post, Johsone. Ithaca... you a Cornell boy? Great plant biology program there.
Anyway, I just wanted to say a few things about the theory of evolution itself.
First and foremost, the evolution is not progressing towards some sort of evolutionary perfection. Evolution does not plan ahead. Selection, whether natural or artificial occurs solely on a moment to moment basis and through that selection, evolution occurs. If, a few years down the road the environment changes and the selections that were made earlier wind up being detrimental to the organism, so be it. So Thunder, the scenario you envisioned is perfectly reasonable. Yes, if the organism is moved out of the environment it developed in, it may well be at a selective disadvantage and die. How is this contrary to the theory of evolution? If you take a fish and drop it in the Sahara desert it dies, but I don't think you'd argue that it hadn't perfectly adapted to the environment it and it's ancestors grew up in.
There is a limited amount of all resources necessary for life, most notably, food. Therefore, not all organisms are going to survive long enough to or be healthy enough to reproduce. In addition, among those that do manage to reproduce, some are going to be more successful at it than others. There is natural variability within and across species that will allow some individuals to gain an advantage over other organisms in terms of reproducing and propogating their genes. This could mean that the individual is stronger than others, and can outfight others for food, it could mean that the individual has better vision or a better sense of smell than others and can find food easier or that their metabolism is more efficient and they can make do with less food or do more with an equal amount of food. The individual with the selective advantage will have more offspring than others. The next generation will also be subjected to the same selective pressure and "fitter" individuals will once again be selected. Also, a mutation that gives an overall selective advantage can come with detrimental effects as well. Thunder - I don't know how you can argue that being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia makes the host "weaker" in the context of a malaria rich environment. I'd argue that not getting malaria makes you much stronger than the guy who is homozygous for non-sickle cells but has malaria.
Now one of the twists that most people seem not to realize is - there are a number of ways that one can gain a selective advantage. For instance, let's say that the only food source for animals in a region is the leaves of a tall tree. This is the classic example - the animal that's taller or has a longer neck would have access to more of the leaves and would gain an advantage. BUT, you could also gain an advantage by, for instance, being able to climb the tree well, so at the same time as you're selecting for tall animals, you're selecting for small animals. Alternatively, maybe if you could dig better, you could get at the roots of the tree which might also be edible, so animals with thicker claws or tusks or something like that would also be selected for. Maybe some animals would even be able to break down cellulose or have symbiotic bacteria that could do it for them and they could leave the leaves for others and just go straight for the tree trunk. This is why, as Azure asked, "If humans involved from apes, why do apes no longer evolve into humans?" It's because they were able to survive in their particular environment in a different way than we were able to survive in our particular advantage.
The other offshoot of this and the mechanism of mutations is that at its basis, evolution is a stochastic process. In other words, while you can predict that, if you subject a population to selective pressure (as long as the pressure isn't too stringent) you will select for and enrich mutations that compensate for that pressure, you cannot predict exactly what those mutations will be or exactly what traits they will encode. For instance, if you grow bacteria in low doses of an antibiotic, and slowly increase the concentration of antibiotic over time, you will eventually have a population of bacteria that is all resistant to the antibiotic. However, you won't know ahead of time if that resistance will be because the antibiotic's target is mutated or if the method that the antibiotic used to get into the cell was mutated or if the cell wall was mutated to exclude the antibiotic or if the cells selected for had the ability to break down or modify the antibiotic before it could harm them. It could also mean that you could end up with separate populations each of which utilizes different methods of antibiotic resistance.
So what is the logic behind accepting the theory of evolution right now? Well, it's taking a number of observations and integrating them. We know that mutations occur, both spontaneously and through the outside influence of, for instance, solar radiation. We see the result of this in genetic variability even within species. We also know that these mutations, although most are silent, can lead to phenotypic changes, whether they be beneficial, detrimental or both. The mutations that lead to distinctly different phenotypes can occur from as little as a single nucleotide change. This can and has been shown through mutagenesis experiments. We know that the repeated selection of specific traits over several generations can lead to very dramatic macroscopic changes -- think about dogs for instance, a chihuahua is very different from a mastiff and both are very different from wolves and this has taken place over, what, 10 or 20,000 years? Imagine extending this to 1,000,000 years - remember that opens up the possibility of differences 100 times more dramatic than the difference between a chihuahua and a mastiff, now think a billion years -- that's so long that it loses all meaning to human comprehension. A lot can happen in that much time.
All that means is that theoretically it could happen. It doesn't mean it did. However, there's another piece of evidence. Now, most people accept that paternity tests are accurate, right? Well, the way they work is by comparing the child's genome to the putative parent's genome. If they are sufficiently similar, it is taken as and generally accepted as evidence that the father is who momma says it is. The genetic similarity is considered sufficient, you don't need a videotape of a specific sperm cell leaving the father's body and fertilizing the egg. This can easily be extended to determining if two people are siblings. I don't know the exact numbers, but let's say for the sake of argument that a 99.99999% identify between two people indicates that they are siblings. A 99.9999% identify would probably show that they shared 2 grandparents, ie that they were cousins. I don't know what 99.999% would show, maybe 2nd cousins, but it would certainly show that they shared a common ancestor at some point. So, if you took DNA samples from 2 individuals and found that their genomes were 99% identical, you'd conclude that they shared a common ancestor many, many generations back. If one happened to be a chimpanzee and the other a human, it shouldn't change that conclusion. So for all those people who have been questioning humans descending from apes, that's not what the theory of evolution says, it says that apes and humans descended from a common ancestor. Whether you believe this or not is up to you, but don't ascribe things to the theory of evolution that it doesn't say. Given the genetic similarity, I'd say that's a pretty safe conclusion.
So what we have is evidence that members of different species descended from common ancestors at different times, depending on how different the species are (for instance, our common ancestor with the oak tree is WAY back in the mists of time) AND a mechanism by which that common ancestor's offspring could have differentiated and diverged into the two different species. That's why evolution is the widely accepted model in the scientific community. It's not because of dogma or pseudo religious zeolotry, it's based on examining the evidence and coming to what if feel is quite a reasonable conclusion.
And, once again, although I personally do not believe in God, the acceptance of the theory of evolution is not mutually exclusive with being religious. I know a number of scientists who accept the theory of evolution and who believe in God.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 06:22 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 26 Oct 2002
|
Quote
"GOD has been predominant until more "thinkers" came to be and asked a simple question "Why?" and since their parents couldn't explain"
Actually according to the Bible Adam and Eve asked why...been with us from the very beginning in my opinion.
Quote
"NOBODY can disprove gods existence or non existence. (I have tried)"
Yep
Quote
"I still say we should somehow evolve past them both well actually past them all"
Actually if you look at history it would seem we are actually de-evolving (a word?)...killed more people in modern era than ever...still have theft, adultery, pride, selfishness, child abuse, cruelty, etc. So if we are going to evolve past faith we better start getting at it
Madunicorn...you again surprise me...well stated posts
Lews...unfair...foul I thought we were calling a truce and going to read a book of another's choice Well I will look past this foul...lol.
Quote
"though you think that science is a lot 'cloudier' than I think it is"
I maybe miscommunicated in here given the nature of the posts. I undermine science here because I find too many people errantly think it is the wonder cure and totally objective and trustworthy...but don't get me wrong...I love science...particularly social science...I think life has been made much better through the "hard"sciences and "soft" sciences If there were more skeptics of science (i.e. nihilists) here I would likely be arguing the other side
Quote
"Can God create a stone, which is so heavy that He cannot lift it?"
Excellent question that has given us all hours of ponder. My simple belief is no he can't. The reasoning is that if someone is the creator they cannot create something better than themselves..input/output type theory. Also if the God I believe in is..."all powerful"...it would literally be impossible for there something to be more powerful (i.e. heavy) than "all powerful"
Snogard I am delighted everytime I read your posts Very acute perspective!
Quote
"Bush Jr. and Bush Senior both very scary religious people. (honestly dont know where he comes off saying atheists cant be patriots but whatever)"
Mad he never said that...look it up on any search engine...you won't find it from any mainstream journalist at all! That is urban legend...and not even very popular at that...kind of inline with "if you forward this email, Bill Gates will donate money to such and such a cause"...sorry if I broke anyone's heart with the Bill Gates rumor;0
Quote
"Evolution is not the only solution offered by science for the existence of the world or life, but a piece of science's explanations"
I personally believe in the theory that we are all a in a computer virtual world that Bill Gates has made as he toys with us;...oh no...Tron flashbacks (hope some of the younger posters understand the Tron reference...man I am just too old=-) hehe
johnsone79...haven't seen you post before...but got to say glad you are posting....superb post you gave
Bort nice synopsis of evolutionary theory.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 10:53 AM |
|
|
actually i thought according to bible...
adam and eve only asked that question AFTER eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. This i guess will reinforce my thought even tho it is a religious quote.
devolve is the word u were looking for... and this is true we are goin backwards. Everybody is looking for something to turn too and finding nothing thus making them angry. Religion is resposible for the regression... atleast currently catholic.
dunno lost my thought again its 5am
____________
I guess with my way thinking I would be going to hell. Good thing I dont believe in it.
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 01:22 PM |
|
|
Obviously, science as it is today can't explain everything. How so? Try this: Explain the beginning of the universe. Big bang, right? Fine, what caused it? Neutrino particles, right? Fine, where did they come from? See, eventually you have to admit that something doesn't just come from nothing just because, and there must be some "force" that exists outside the normal parameters of reality.
Now, religion for the most part is a bad thing. When you have a bunch of people saying "This is the way things are. No, we have no proof, but believe us anyway, or you're going to hell," it's kinda hard to give them much credibility.
But we have to remember that most religions began in a time when most people weren't very well educated, and obviously uneducated common folk are easier to dupe.
Now, saying "Jesus screwed the world over" is pretty dumb. Even though I don't agree with most of Jesus' RELIGIOUS teachings (or rather, what the bible says his teachings were, but that's another story), Jesus Christ was an admirable person. He preached compassion, forgiveness, and loving your fellow man.
As for the title "Science vs. Religion," that's somewhat absurd. It's not a competition. Saying "I don't believe in science" is incredibly stupid, and probably comes from a lack of understanding about what science is. Saying "Science is the be-all and end-all" is equally ignorant; just because something hasn't walked up to you and introduced itself to you, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! I mean, if you've never been to Guam, doesn't that mean it doesn't exist?
Science is just a way of explaining the universe. One day, science will prove the existence of the soul, just as it has the atom. Then, people will all look back at the people of today, and think, "Wow, I just can't wrap my head around these people not understanding this." Hey, I already do.
I guess what I'm trying to say is keep an open mind, read some books, and remember that science and spirituality are by no means mutually exclusive.
____________
Permanent resident of <a href="http://www.ziggy-shwa.com/forums">The Idiot Box</a>
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 01:26 PM |
|
|
Oh, yeah. Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is the most popular.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Can God create a stone, which is so heavy that He cannot lift it?
I think the normal answer if you believe in an omnipotent God is "Yes, but he could still lift it even though he couldn't lift it." The reasoning being that an omnipotent God could create paradox.
|
|
Motorschaaf
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2002 03:17 PM |
|
|
i have seen a lot things made by science
i havent seen anything made by god so far...well anything but wars caused by some dump fanatic extremists who believe kinda too strong in her
Motorschaaf
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted October 23, 2002 04:15 PM |
|
Edited By: HeyYou on 23 Oct 2002
|
Ockham's Razor
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
Excerpted from the above site:
"Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions."
It's a good explanation of Ockham's Razor.
Read it. Live it. Love it.
--------
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." ~ Hanlon's Razor
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 04:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
i have seen a lot things made by science
i havent seen anything made by god so far...well anything but wars caused by some dump fanatic extremists who believe kinda too strong in her
You're probably right, God didn't make anything, man did and still do. And I don't think SHE is even able to cause wars. WARS!? Na... those FEATS are normally handle by the "lot of things" made by science.
bort:
Great summary on The Theory of Evolution! What the ****, you should have told me this long ago and save me the few hundred pages of The Origin of Species, time and trouble!
I've been wondering, since this thread is about Science Vs Religion (whatever religion means...), if there is a betting on whether the Theory of Evolution (and Relativity, and Super String, and whatnot) or the "Theory of God" would prevail the longest, where would you place your money?
To answer the thread, I'm a great fan of Darwin... but here is my 10gp * carefully counting 10 gold pieces from the pouch * on the "Theory of God" - gotta be more Practical when $ is involved.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 06:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
bort:
Great summary on The Theory of Evolution!
Thank you
Quote:
What the ****, you should have told me this long ago and save me the few hundred pages of The Origin of Species, time and trouble!
The thing about The Origin of Species is that as influential as it's been, it is a little dated at this point. Put it this way, when it was written, DNA as the basis of heredity was not known...
Quote:
I've been wondering, since this thread is about Science Vs Religion (whatever religion means...), if there is a betting on whether the Theory of Evolution (and Relativity, and Super String, and whatnot) or the "Theory of God" would prevail the longest, where would you place your money?
To answer the thread, I'm a great fan of Darwin... but here is my 10gp * carefully counting 10 gold pieces from the pouch * on the "Theory of God" - gotta be more Practical when $ is involved.
This is a bit loaded - a better way would be to ask "Will there be scientific theories or religion longer." or "Will this particular scientific theory outlast this particular religion." Will the Theory of Relativity as it is written today outlast Christianity? No. Will the Theory of Relativity as it is currently formulated outlast, say California Cult #645? Yeah. Will phyics as a field outlast Christianity as a religion? Quite possibly. Then again, maybe not. Who can say?
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 07:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing about The Origin of Species is that as influential as it's been, it is a little dated at this point. Put it this way, when it was written, DNA as the basis of heredity was not known...
I'm aware of that, and that's why I was wondering wouldn't it be better if I've just read your summary instead. (Just kidding)
Quote:
This is a bit loaded - a better way would be to ask "Will there be scientific theories or religion longer." or "Will this particular scientific theory outlast this particular religion." Will the Theory of Relativity as it is written today outlast Christianity? No. Will the Theory of Relativity as it is currently formulated outlast, say California Cult #645? Yeah.
A very "bortish" reply...
Well, I guess you know what I meant. O.K, let's just say "Will there be scientific theories or religion longer?"
Quote:
Will phyics as a field outlast Christianity as a religion? Quite possibly. Then again, maybe not. Who can say?
Of course no one can say, that's why I call it betting! If not, it would be cheating - like Vegas.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
| |
|
|
