[Nex]

why cant science be discussed without taking religion or god into the game?

I mean.. seriously. what has religion to do with science? Less than nothing.

And science is not some alternative program you can choose instead of believing(or not believing) in god.



[This message has been edited by Nex (edited February 02, 2001).]

[Bishop_Six]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

[Nex]

do you know what he meant with it?

[This message has been edited by Nex (edited February 02, 2001).]

[Nex]

Einstein was a religious person, but I think you can solve equations and make experiments too when you dont believe in god at all.

In so far i dont see a connection between religion and science

religion often denies science
(the earth is not the center of the universe)
(we are not made from clay)
(a woman is not made out of a rib)

but science does not deny religion
because the search for answers is a philosophical one.. and science is also philosohpy. in so far religion and science have something in common




[This message has been edited by Nex (edited February 02, 2001).]

[Muzman]

It's an interesting time in history when people start saying "well it's my opinion" about things like scientific knowledge. Rights don't really come into it. Unless one's beliefs shun all modern conveniences like the Amish or The Bretheren (or medecine like the Christian Scientists) there's really no denying what accepted science says because you're using it all the time.
The theory of evolution doesn't have nice neat boundaries where someone can slice it out of their belief system. It's in everything to do with biology and organic chemistry. It can't be ignored or dismissed, only disproved (or rather, it can but not in any truly practical sense). But I think that's been covered.

it's also worth remembering that morphology and taxonomy are things we made up and are being refined constantly. So saing that a species can't evolve into another isn't quite right since some newly accepted theory could split already existing phylum down the middle tomorrow. And so on

This is a good discussion. No one should ever stop discussng these big topics just because 'they're always talked about' or because passions might run high.

[peter]

yep imho science and religion dont bite each other, because science probably wont come to the point that all is explored and nothing unknown. so there is always a place for god

on the other hand i dont like these fanatic religious people ('bible throwers') that shout out theire simple minded opinions e.g. about science without any knowledge.

ciao
peter

------------------
((( www.jzone.de )))

[Trance-R]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nex:
In so far i dont see a connection between religion and science

religion often denies science
(we are not made from clay)
(a woman is not made out of a rib)

---

I think sometimes religion has a way of telling things scientifically by metaphoric speech. Clay could be a substance/mixture of substances that resemble human composition in some manner.
A female is 'made' out of x chromosomes from men, plus a y chromosome....
That's my angle.


[This message has been edited by Trance-R (edited February 04, 2001).]

[Nex]

Trance-R: you are sure right and I agree that those things are meant in a metaphorical way.
The only strange thing is that many many people still take that literatly.
Actually much more than I thought.

[Ragnarok]

It's interesting how religion adapts the new discoveries of science to fit in their concept of god.
For example, last theories about how the universe was before the big bang and while it ocurred had been implemented in the last ideas of how god created the world.
Also, it's interesting to see how those ideas are in my college's philosophy book, but when they compare it wiht science they just talk about "time=space/velocity=space/aceleration2". And of course it's said taking scientist as stupids.

[jcterminal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Count Zero:
Jcterminal, if you don't like the conversation, then just don't fucking participate.
Close your eyes. Do not read further. It's that simple.

---

if you don't like me butting in, then keep your banality private.

Close your eyes. Do not think further. It's that complex.



------------------
j.c.terminal
mind
body
soul

[Duckman2]

Well, I'm not a religious person at all, but I don't totally dismiss the existence of a greater being. I also belive religion was created by people that didn't understand the world around them and wanted answers. Religion then evolved into a way for powerful people to subdue the populace and justify their own power(Divine rule). Now especially in America politicians use it to mine votes and make them seem more appealing and closer to God(the christian one).
I also belive science is a religion in it's own sense. Because scence, like religion is based on conjecture and the unknown. In a perfect world they wouldn't overlap.

[Frost]

There is no science, nor a God; just Joe Pesci.

[Periadam]

going back to that lizard evolution thing...

I think that it_does_prove evolution from one species into another. different skin colour, thicker whatevers... there are smaller differences seen today between different species of one type of animal.

e.g. , the bottlenose and spotted dolphins. different skin colouration, slimmer bodies and noses in spotted dolphins. they frequently interbreed with one another.

if that variation of the lizard had already existed in nature instead of us placing it there, we would have seen it as an individual species of the same family.

my point is made

------------------
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

Peri.

[Trance-R]

Duckman2: I agree with you... religion has been so twisted and bent over the course of human history that it has become a somewhat efficient dictative convention.
But for the most part, religion is meant to bring peace and comfort within us.

LOL, Peridam. I like your signature: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." Excellent irony.

[Brue]

ALl i have to say is science sucks, i had a sci quiz on monday, a sci unit test today and a sci mid term tomorrow
hmph

[Ragnarok]

Soon I'll have a inorganic's formulation exam. If I fail that exam, I fail the subject for this evaluation and I only have 10% fail. So, one mistake over 10 questions is the maximun. And my teacher likes to have all the info.

[Blue Rose]

About the evolution form one specie to another,

The main diffecences between the species, so far as I remember, is that the offspring of the members of different species would not be able to survive becaouse of the weird genetic code that it would have, after combining the codes of its parents. Unless there is significant mutation that would improve it, or unless someone intervenes.

So, basicaly, all it takes to make a new species, is mutate one of the existing species so that its genetic code would change significantly enough to make it incompatible with any other. All that is needed for it, according to Darwin, are different environment (to ancourage competition and development of the new kind of members of a specie), time, and isolation. Lizards are the example of that.

Since evolution is generally concidered in its core to be simply random mutations controlled by the natural selection, it does not make sence to say that the evolution is possible within the species, but not between them.

[Trance-R]

O no...
A newbie killed the thread?!

LOL. j/k Blue Rose. Nice to see you here. This board needs some Renaissance man.. did I spell that right?

Anyways you know what? The whole human race is a coincidence! A mutant I tell you!
Mutant from the first aggregated multi-cellular organism! (Indirectly a mutant of course..we're mutant of a mutant of a mutant of a mutant...2000x more)

[shahar2k]

"I pray to Joe Peschi, I get about the same results as praying to god"
- George Carlain

I've had this argument(discussion) with my religious friend a 1000 times, my conclusion is that I believe that the universe has a single underlying rule, but I absolutely do not think it is sentient (intelligent) so while there might be a grand unified theory, there is no consciousness... since a consciousness is not a simple thing, it's not a SINGLE object like a soul, but a HUGE array of simple objects with complex emerging patterns.....

but that's just me

[the_monkey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue Rose:


Unless there is significant mutation that would improve it, or unless someone intervenes.

So, basicaly, all it takes to make a new species, is mutate one of the existing species so that its genetic code would change significantly enough to make it incompatible with any other. All that is needed for it, according to Darwin, are different environment (to ancourage competition and development of the new kind of members of a specie), time, and isolation. Lizards are the example of that.

Since evolution is generally concidered in its core to be simply random mutations controlled by the natural selection, it does not make sence to say that the evolution is possible within the species, but not between them.

---

just a thing about mutations. i havent seen any mutations that have improved any certain specis or plant. mutations usually degrade the condition of the subject. for example, someone mutates a rat to have a 3rd ear, a few weeks later, that rat dies. i donno how exact i am, (im no scientist) but what i know about mutations is that they react negitivly.

oh yeah, and about this crazy fanatic religion stuff, well the only religious dogma i have is that Jesus is Lord, and that I am to love him. The rest is just religion, and religion is rules and containment, blah blah blah. i am a christian, i would die for Christ, but not for any religion. the church has changed alot over the years, alot of corrupt stuff going on, but for every bad example there is 2 good ones. People always note the negitive about anything, and overlook the positive.


------------------
Maho: the online Comic

tradgedy is when i cut my finger.
comedy is when i fall down a manhole and die.

[Ben Barker]

Most mutations in nature are pretty subtle I think. The third ear thing is an artificial freak. But people evolving, say, white skin to save energy because they live in Europe is more natural.

[quintessential]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddio:
[B]quintessential
"How can light have a single speed, and be incapable of varying it, if it is a particle? "

its not a particle.
[B]

---

Gee I've been gone for a while and now I find this huge argument over my little post

light is a particle, you ever heard of a photon? how else do you think it reaches us from the sun? waves can't travel through a vacuum.

As for the other comments I know a great deal more about science than you might think. No the questions are NOT answered by reading a physics book, I've read several.

AS for the whole evolution-religion debate, If we evolved, fine, if we were created by God, fine. Either way we're on this planet for 70 odd years, we don't need to waste it arguing with each other if there is no way we will ever change the other's opinion.

by the way, that last line should be "Why the hell IS anything" stupid typos :P

[Nex]

Freddio was right.

light is NOT a particle.

light is NOT a wave.

light is both a particle AND a wave at the same time.

[Nex]

Why is time travel constantly happening on a quantum level, but impossible on a macro level?

because small particles can move with speeds close to light speed and thats where the relative time dilation kicks in

If there as a force of repulsion (the 2nd form of gravity) why doesn't it push me away from the earth?

because the repulsion has the same strength as the gravity but an inverted vector. m x (9.81 m/s^2) + m x (-9.81 m/s^2) = 0

If there is a force of attraction (gravity) between all masses, why is the universe infinitely expanding?

because of the Force all particles got from the big bang. The universe is expanding but getting slower. And its not infinitely expanding.


Why are small particles always negative, and larger ones positive or neutral?

an electron is a small particle and negative. a positron is an equally small particle and positive.

If antimatter did exist, why is it gone today?

During the Big Bang most of the particles and anti-particles were involved in mutual annihilation, but the slight imbalance led to the birth of the Universe and the material we can see today. There is still antimatter but a very small ammount compared to matter.

-
and so on... you will find the answers if you take the time to search.

[Dean Welsh]

nex is right (sorry I just joined in now I've been away from the forums for a long while)

quote:

---

Why is time travel constantly happening on a quantum level, but impossible on a macro level?

because small particles can move with speeds close to light speed and thats where the relative time dilation kicks in

---

There is actually a theory being developed now that Time itself Does not exist. We just percieve it as existing because of the the way the atoms worked out to give us a moment of sentience in this Static Universe.

quote:

---

Because of the Force all particles got from the big bang. The universe is expanding but getting slower. And its not infinitely expanding.

---

Definately. It'll collapse evenutally according to modern theory.

quote:

---

Why are small particles always negative, and larger ones positive or neutral?

an electron is a small particle and negative. a positron is an equally small particle and positive.

If antimatter did exist, why is it gone today?

During the Big Bang most of the particles and anti-particles were involved in mutual annihilation, but the slight imbalance led to the birth of the Universe and the material we can see today. There is still antimatter but a very small ammount compared to matter.

---

Actually a positron is an anti-particle if I remember correctly. So there's your anti-matter.


And for anyone who'd like to listen to an old radioshow, here's a neat take on the whole Religion Vs. Science issue. It's from the 50's so it's a little dated but I think it's relevant.
http://toyangel.com/dean/forum/XMinus1_SurfaceTension.mp3

-dean

[travis travis]

quintessential,

Poor you for starting such a thread.

Let's put it this way -- science deals with mechanics, not with the whole. There's no real 'answer' in it, there's little principles and such that we can use for our advantage. It's very much just a part of the economy today, and as such, when trying to deal with matters of the personal, it is useless.

[Blue Rose]

"Renaissance man.. did I spell that right?"
Yep. Pretty close. How did you know? Did ... tell you?

"i havent seen any mutations that have improved any certain specis"
Of course you haven't. Probably no one did. It takes time. That's why, according to Darwin, we didn't appear right away, but took 3 billion years to develop.

"for example, someone mutates a rat ..."
That's how the natural selection works. The unsuccessful mutants die, the successful ones survive, and the very successful ones not only survive, but replace some other species.

"It'll collapse evenutally according to modern theory"
Umm... no. That depends on which theory you look at. Quite a few modern astrophysicists believe that the uiverse is speeding up due to something called the "inflation effect". Plus, the effects of gravity decline inversly proportional to the square of the distance between the two masses, which means that only a finite amount of energy needed for two masses to keep moving away from each other forever. It is pretty easy to derive by taking an improper integral from certain initial distance to infinity of the gravitational force with respect to the distance between the two masses.

"when trying to deal with matters of the personal, it is useless"
What about psychology and that kind of thing? Or did I get the statement wrong?

As for the science being a lie... maybe, maybe. Almost all that has been proven, has been working so far though. Many people use it, and are satisfied. We can never be sure that we have the right answer, and that the solution that has been working so far is not going to fail next tome.

[shahar2k]

mutations that have evolved a species?
during the industrial revolution a species of moth that was usually white, with abnormal cases being black suddenly reversed that trend... why? because of a change in it's environment, the trees in the area became blackened with smoke from factories, so the white moths were easier to hunt by birds, and therefore the black veriaty became more prominent.

another example?
humans, we have wisdom teeth, and they are practically useless, and infact usually pulled out.... now people are being born without wisdom teeth... a feature that is useless and has dissapeared.

there's evolution for ya.


as for the universe... I've discussed this speculation with a friend... imagine the universe as a ripple on a pond ever expanding from the big bang... now, imagine if that pond's surface was actually a sphere.... wouldn't the universe no matter what happened eventually collapse upon itself?


now that is pure theory on my side, I'm not sure if any other theories repeat that. it's just a personal speculation, but it helps me make sense of the world around.

that's all religion and science really is. ways to calm your ignorance. So while religion encourages you to "put your faith in god" science encourages you to test every hypothesis untill it's proven false.

so by saying "science is a lie... you've told the truth, science is a complex fabrication, that explains observed phenomenea by building theories attempting to explain them.


------------------
Maybe I'm paranoid... maybe it's you!

[kig]

Science is an approximation of how stuff interacts. The so-called "laws of physics" are a set of guesstimates made by doing repeated observations and fitting them into a relatively easy-to-use mathematical function. Just like laws of justice are just a moral code average of a region and so on.

Yeah, I know that agnostism is the coward's way. "I can't know anything about it so I can't have an opinion on that either blah blah" What matters is that these guesstimates work on an enough general level to be of some use. We will never learn the final truth behind everything (GUI is just a better, unified guesstimate), because that'd require monitoring everything.

Heh, time is measured by the relative speed of light (khih). The faster you move, the slower your time seems to pass in relation to a static observer. This theory is used in positioning satellites blah. and stuff.

sleep crawls up my ear and makes me say lies, for all above is lies. and truth is a subjective matter if any. fu fu fool around wi wi with your mind be be because it is so much fun to type and see people not reply hey la la *clap* *clap* *clap*

[Ragnarok]

In fact, the universe could be expanding forever or eventually colapse, it depends of the mass of the universe. And right now the estimated mass is too small for the gravity efects, that's why they are looking for a new particle, neutrinos (sp?)