Can Science and Religion co exist?

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1604043 wrote:you are fulfilling no need, accept your need to cover you inconsistencies.

  I have never suggested I had a "need".
  
  I certaianly have no need to convince you of my belief's. I never bring up the subject of God on here. I do participate, however, just like you and many others.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Back to the original post, this thread has blown up just as expected.
  
  It’s not my intention to mock or offend anyone. But I realize people sometimes feel mocked or offended.
  
  It might be fair to say that I'm disrespectful. I would agree that most Agnostics don’t respect the notion that religion should sit on a pedestal. But I also no not think that because an action is explained in the context of religion it is exempt from the scrutiny it otherwise would have been subjected to.
  Religion is not a free pass for crazy ideas and crazy actions.
  
  I would agree that it’s not my place to pass judgment on those who see the world through a lens of religion. But neither is it my place to ignore when personal belief becomes public action. We can accept that some choose to teach their kids the earth is 8000 years old and that dinosaurs are a myth. But if they push for those ideas to be taught in our schools, it’s no longer a question of respecting personal belief.
  
  The idea that rational minded people must be anti-religion is a wrong one, I think. If we must draw a line to divide ourselves, I’d prefer the line be positioned between reasonable and unreasonable people, rather than religious and non-religious people.
  It’s one thing to see the world through a lens, and another thing to act as if it’s the only lens that can exist. This is one of the hard questions – What is the line between respect and concern.
  
  I will admit that I do post trollish content to really piss someone off for my own entertainment. I find it very funny to see people defend their beliefs in such an illogical and emotional way. If it make you feel better to defend you indoctrinated way of life, Have at it. Living your life according Christian principals is not a bad way to live your life. It obviously could be a path to a content and enjoyable life. But I would ask you this simple courtesy: Please do not Look down your nose at me for choosing not to have the same belief system as you. and keep your religion beliefs out of out government, laws, and schools.
  
  
  
  
  \otrapped
• Con_Alma

  Devils Advocate;1604769 wrote:... But I would ask you this simple courtesy: Please do not Look down your nose at me for choosing not to have the same belief system as you. ...

  Has someone on here done that?? That's unfortunate.
• jmog

  Someone said dinosaurs are a myth? I had to google that one to even know that some people ACTUALLY believe that one.
  
  Here's one great ignorant (read uninformed) religious zealot who can't even put a couple coherent sentences together on Yahoo Answers...
  
  "Does the Anatomy and Physiology of the Dimo support the existence of Dinosaurs. I thought that the bone of an animal always out weigh the flesh. Why would the creator make carnivors before man? What flood? I'd think that if they were here, they were meant to be here. So...why would they kill themselves off. Look how they are built and put together on TV and on cartoons, they don't look natural. This is just one big lie to get us to believe in evolution. Man coming from a fish that climbs out of the water and walks up on land??? Or, the big bang theory. Even the book "Jarasic Park" talks about the myth of the Dinosaurus."
  
  I honestly didn't even know that some people believed that one...
  
  Oh, and if anyone's "belief system" on this thread was being looked down apon, it was NOT the agnostics or atheists, the Christian belief system was the target of the 'wrath' on here as it was meant to be by our very own Devil's Advocate.
• HitsRus

  

  If it make you feel better to defend you indoctrinated way of life,

  That is a somewhat insulting and incorrect statement.

  I’d prefer the line be positioned between reasonable and unreasonable people, rather than religious and non-religious people.

  As would I. Further, I would prefer science to be taught in science classes....and I stand by my statement that science and religion can co-exist, although not with everybody.
• sleeper

  

  As would I. Further, I would prefer science to be taught in science classes....and I stand by my statement that science and religion can co-exist, although not with everybody.

  They can co-exist as long as the religious fanatics cease peddling their beliefs as 'true'. They are not true and therefore have no place in society other than in the confines of your own home and whatever tax free church you attend.
• jmog

  sleeper;1604919 wrote:They can co-exist as long as the religious fanatics cease peddling their beliefs as 'true'. They are not true and therefore have no place in society other than in the confines of your own home and whatever tax free church you attend.

  Sometimes I wish people understood the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact.
• rydawg5

  I think it's ironic an atheist believes in so many miracles without hesitation while a creationist believes in 1. All things are by design or purpose verses a miracle of non life into life and a miracle of bacteria to a fish and so on.. Oh what odds..thousands of improbable miracles all happening and the domino effect of miracles of nature to produce what is. I hope to one day be as faithful and indoctrinated as my fellow atheist. And to clarify I believe in evolution but by design.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I have long since recognized the fact that zealoutry and intolerance exists on both sides of this issue, science or religion, it does not matter. People in general always strive to be "more right". This particular thread showcases this process quite easily. I am of the belief that having faith is not the same as being religious. I think that needs to be pointed out. Even though I didn't read through the obnoxiousness of the whole thread, just a quick glance over on some pages showed me that there are many who do not make that distinction. A few posts, of opposite opinions/beliefs, did catch my eye because they were well thought-out and respectful of the post that they were addressing. However, these were greatly swarmed over by other posts that were more interested in being a parade rather than anything else. And those posts that were caught up in their own brand of zealoutry, IMO, lost whatever meaning that they *could* have had.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1604929 wrote:Sometimes I wish people understood the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact.

  Gee, this is ironic. I wish people understood the difference between projecting their wishful thinking onto the world and the world as it actually is.
  
  It is a verified and undeniable fact of the world we live in that he half life of Uranium to Lead is 4.47 billion years. Radioactive Decay is an undeniable fact of the world we live in that has been repeatedly verified. It is a fact of the world we live in that the Earth is billions of years old. Humankind knows that. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old is as much of a fact as the theory that the force of gravity exists is a fact.
  
  
  ^^But you're in luck. That could all be bullshit...maybe just a lie from the Devil himself as the soon to be Senator from Georgia thinks (Unbelievably sad that these people are running things in this Country) or you could be a brain in a vat somewhere. So science can't prove that we're all not brains in vats so go on believing it!
• WebFire

  I do have a question I've been wondering about lately. I see people ask all the time to prayer for someone who is sick, or had some negative thing happen in their life. But why is that needed? Does God only listen if someone gets so many prayer requests? Is it a popularity contest? If you don't get enough, too bad you suffer. But if you meet the quota then he'll help?
  
  Help, I'm confused. Thanks.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Here ya go!
  
  
  
  
  
  
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1605138 wrote:Gee, this is ironic. I wish people understood the difference between projecting their wishful thinking onto the world and the world as it actually is.
  
  It is a verified and undeniable fact of the world we live in that he half life of Uranium to Lead is 4.47 billion years.

  True

  Radioactive Decay is an undeniable fact of the world we live in that has been repeatedly verified.

  True

  It is a fact of the world we live in that the Earth is billions of years old. Humankind knows that. The theory that the Earth is billions of years old is as much of a fact as the theory that the force of gravity exists is a fact.

  False.
  Comparing radiometric dating to gravity shows your lack of knowledge about how science works. We can observe gravity by simply dropping a ball. You can't observe rocks aging billions of years.
  
  Now, here is the whole key, like I have mentioned dozens of times but you just plain won't listen.
  
  Radiometric dating techniques make major assumptions. Specifically for U-Pb, the first of which is that 100% of the lead in the rock came from uranium. This assumption is a vast leap since there is obviously a chance that there was some lead originally in the rock. There is a chance that some of the lead came from the 26 radioactive isotopes that also are in the U-Pb decay chain, 8 of which are major step changes and therefore realistic possibilities. They also assume that over these billions of years as water has passed over/around/through this rock that ZERO amount of uranium or lead has leached in/out of the rock, that it has been in a hermetically sealed bag basically (yes, I am over simplifying).
  
  
  
  
  Also, gravity is not a theory, it is a Law, which is much different. The Gravitational Theory is how gravity works, the Law of Gravity is the equations behind the fact that it exists. Basically the Law helps us understand what gravity does on a large scale, the theory tries to explain (with an unproven particle called the graviton) HOW it works on the microscopic level.
  
  You are mixing up scientific laws with scientific theories.
  
  The Laws of Thermodynamics are facts, how heat moves, entropy always increasing, etc.
  The Law of Gravity is a fact.
  Newton's Laws of Motion are facts.
  
  Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a theory, a very good/well accepted model of how things work in the atomic sized world along with how things work as we approach the speed of light. It has never been proven and there are some competing theories as well as some "bridge" theories like string theory to fill in the holes between relativity and macroscopic laws (Newton's).
  
  Gravitational Theory is a very good/well accepted model of a particle causing gravitational force. We KNOW the force is a fact (see the Laws of Gravity), what we have to theorize is how that force is created. It has never been proven and many particle physicists are still trying to find/observe said graviton.
  
  The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show) is a very good/well accepted model of how the universe expanded fractions of a second after it started. It is not a fact and there are some other theories as to how the universe began.
  
  Evolutionary Theory is a very good/well accepted model of how live transformed on this planet. It has not been proven and therefore not a fact.
  
  I hope this helps in explaining the difference between fact and theory in the scientific world.
  
  Before you jump up screaming about major scientific theory having a different threshold/definition than the normal English definition of theory. I am WELL aware, and you have yet to see where I have NOT said they are very well accepted theories.
  
  However, there have been many scientific theories over the centuries that have eventually proven to be false.
  
  One of which was that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Early astronomers saw the fact that it appeared that everything revolved around the Earth. They came up with fancy orbits that included orbits integrated inside orbits (like the picture) with the Earth off center to explain the path that the planets make in the Earth's sky. With what was known at the time, it was a good/viable theory as to the way the solar system looked. It fit the evidence they were able to measure and was widely accepted. However, it was obviously proved false once more modern measurements were able to be taken. It wasn't a small refinement of the model either, it was a MAJOR change to the theory. Just like when Darwin proposed evolution, it was a MAJOR change to the prevailing theories. There is nothing to say that there won't be another MAJOR change to how life developed as we refine our observation and measurement techniques in the scientific world.
  
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1605186 wrote:True
  
  True
  
  False.
  Comparing radiometric dating to gravity shows your lack of knowledge about how science works. We can observe gravity by simply dropping a ball. You can't observe rocks aging billions of years.
  
  Now, here is the whole key, like I have mentioned dozens of times but you just plain won't listen.
  
  Radiometric dating techniques make major assumptions. Specifically for U-Pb, the first of which is that 100% of the lead in the rock came from uranium. This assumption is a vast leap since there is obviously a chance that there was some lead originally in the rock.

  Jmog, the world has thought of your argument and defeated it by using zircon which was pointed out in the video link I provided.
  
  http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm
  

  The favorite mineral among U-Pb daters is zircon (ZrSiO4), for several good reasons.First, its chemical structure likes uranium and hates lead. Uranium easily substitutes for zirconium while lead is strongly excluded. This means the clock is truly set at zero when zircon forms.
  Second, zircon has a high trapping temperature of 900°C. Its clock is not easily disturbed by geologic events—not erosion or consolidation into sedimentary rocks, not even moderate metamorphism.
  Third, zircon is widespread in igneous rocks as a primary mineral. This makes it especially valuable for dating these rocks, which have no fossils to indicate their age.

  100% of the lead in zircon is from radioactive decay.
• sleeper

  

  rydawg5;1605091 wrote:I think it's ironic an atheist believes in so many miracles without hesitation while a creationist believes in 1. All things are by design or purpose verses a miracle of non life into life and a miracle of bacteria to a fish and so on.. Oh what odds..thousands of improbable miracles all happening and the domino effect of miracles of nature to produce what is. I hope to one day be as faithful and indoctrinated as my fellow atheist. And to clarify I believe in evolution but by design.

  I don't believe in any miracles. I believe that there is a defined way life happened on Earth and a defined way the universe functions. However, at the moment I have not seen enough evidence from anything to sway me in one direction or the other so I claim, like a rational person, that "I don't know" how it all started. Believing in Evolution but by design doesn't make any sense but by reading some of your post I can tell you are religious and therefore cognitively delusional.
• BoatShoes

  This is how the Institute for Creation Research explains away the fact of Radioactive Decay in Zircon
  

  On the other hand, changes in the physical laws governing the nucleus of the atom would not greatly affect things outside the nucleus, such as the outer electrons of the atom, chemistry, or life. RATE's hypothesis has been that during several short episodes in Earth history (for example, the Genesis Flood). God changed nuclear forces in order to greatly accelerate nuclear decay, particularly for nuclei that now decay very slowly. I have discussed7 many Scriptures suggesting that God did exactly that.
  
  Accelerated nuclear decay would mean that there was a valve on the neck of the uranium-lead hourglass. Most of its sand would fall to the bottom during short episodes when the valve was wide open. Such an acceleration would collapse the billions of years down to the 6000 years of the Bible.

  LOL!!!
  
  See...this position is not falsifiable. "Well, well, God could've just altered the laws of physics for a short time period!!"
  
  So "RATE" is the Institute For Creation Research's Project on "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth". Their official position for explaining away the overwhelming reliability of zircon dating is that God periodically accelerated Radioactive Decay and that there is evidence for this in the Scriptures.
• sleeper

  

  CenterBHSFan;1605112 wrote:I have long since recognized the fact that zealoutry and intolerance exists on both sides of this issue, science or religion, it does not matter. People in general always strive to be "more right". This particular thread showcases this process quite easily. I am of the belief that having faith is not the same as being religious. I think that needs to be pointed out. Even though I didn't read through the obnoxiousness of the whole thread, just a quick glance over on some pages showed me that there are many who do not make that distinction. A few posts, of opposite opinions/beliefs, did catch my eye because they were well thought-out and respectful of the post that they were addressing. However, these were greatly swarmed over by other posts that were more interested in being a parade rather than anything else. And those posts that were caught up in their own brand of zealoutry, IMO, lost whatever meaning that they *could* have had.

  Some of us are angry that ignorance is allowed to be passed off as true and its taboo to fight against this type of ignorance. Therefore, any zealotry is being misconstrued as championing the intellectual integrity of society so that future generations understand that some things are entirely made up and its okay to call these things out for the frauds they are. Sorry you read too deeply into it; I really enjoyed your well thought out post which added tons of value to this discussion.
• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;1605193 wrote:This is how the Institute for Creation Research explains away the fact of Radioactive Decay in Zircon
  
  
  
  LOL!!!
  
  See...this position is not falsifiable. "Well, well, God could've just altered the laws of physics for a short time period!!"
  
  So "RATE" is the Institute For Creation Research's Project on "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth". Their official position for explaining away the overwhelming reliability of zircon dating is that God periodically accelerated Radioactive Decay and that there is evidence for this in the Scriptures.

  LOL
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;1605139 wrote:I do have a question I've been wondering about lately. I see people ask all the time to prayer for someone who is sick, or had some negative thing happen in their life. But why is that needed? Does God only listen if someone gets so many prayer requests? Is it a popularity contest? If you don't get enough, too bad you suffer. But if you meet the quota then he'll help?
  
  Help, I'm confused. Thanks.

  I'll give you the logical answer. Prayer does nothing of real value but what it does do is give delusional people the hope that there is someone out there who is all powerful who can change it. If he chooses not to change it, then its part of his 'grand plan' for that person and it meant to happen. It's a coping mechanism, nothing more nothing less. If it held any real value, believers would just pray and never go to the doctor where science does all the actual work.
  
  As far as bad things happening, don't you know its all the devil's fault? Believers don't really like talking about how god's plan involves killing millions of young children in Africa each year dying from HIV.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1605189 wrote:Jmog, the world has thought of your argument and defeated it by using zircon which was pointed out in the video link I provided.
  
  http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm
  
  
  
  100% of the lead in zircon is from radioactive decay.

  You forgot about the assumption that none of the lead comes from other radioactive elements that finish at lead as well. It is kind of convenient to forget an important assumption, especially when some of those elements like Polonium have half lives of seconds and days instead of billions of years.
  
  Think about it, if the zircon had a mixture of the 8 main radioactive isotopes that all lead to lead when it started, since all of the others have MUCH shorter half lives, after just a couple years one would see ZERO zero concentration of the other isotopes and only uranium and lead would be left. Uranium because it hasn't had time to decay, lead from the small amount of uranium that has decayed AND from all the others that have fully decayed.
  
  You would have the same observable result NOW, if we assume any mixture of the isotopes existed to start vs if we assume it was 100% uranium to start.
  
  You see, the analogy of the baseball still fits just fine. Same final results, 2 different assumptions leads to 2 vastly different original answers.
  
  I am back to the same statement.
  
  Science is amazing at explaining what we see now.
  Science can predict recent past and near future relatively accurately.
  Science becomes bad at predicting the past and future the further away from the present that they are.
  
  How life works (say evolution) is 1000s of times more complicated than the weather, and we can't accurately predict what the weather will be more than a few days from now. And, if you look at a 10 day forecast, tomorrow will be fairly accurate, but the 10th day's prediction will probably change multiple times between now and then.
  
  We can't predict the weather, but so many of us readily accept things much more complicated about the far distant past as "FACT"! Think about it.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1605193 wrote:This is how the Institute for Creation Research explains away the fact of Radioactive Decay in Zircon
  
  
  
  LOL!!!
  
  See...this position is not falsifiable. "Well, well, God could've just altered the laws of physics for a short time period!!"
  
  So "RATE" is the Institute For Creation Research's Project on "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth". Their official position for explaining away the overwhelming reliability of zircon dating is that God periodically accelerated Radioactive Decay and that there is evidence for this in the Scriptures.

  While technically possible (if one assumes a god could create the laws of physics, the same god could change them), it is a bad stance/argument.
  
  However, radioactive decay while VERY stable, is still a chemical reaction. Chemical reaction rates most certainly are affected by temperature, pressure, and chemical composition. Now, it has been tested, observed and theorized that radioactive decay changes VERY SLIGHTLY with these parameters compared to most chemical reactions. This means that it would require VAST changes in temperature or pressure to notice a change in the half life. In other words, to do what this creation science quote is suggesting is that EITHER God did it miraculously (just changed it) or that God miraculously changed the temperature and pressure (both much higher than normal) of the rocks...which would bring in a whole other list of problems.
• WebFire

  sleeper;1605202 wrote:I'll give you the logical answer. Prayer does nothing of real value but what it does do is give delusional people the hope that there is someone out there who is all powerful who can change it. If he chooses not to change it, then its part of his 'grand plan' for that person and it meant to happen. It's a coping mechanism, nothing more nothing less. If it held any real value, believers would just pray and never go to the doctor where science does all the actual work.
  
  As far as bad things happening, don't you know its all the devil's fault? Believers don't really like talking about how god's plan involves killing millions of young children in Africa each year dying from HIV.

  It looks like no one can/wants to refute that.
• jmog

  WebFire;1605139 wrote:I do have a question I've been wondering about lately. I see people ask all the time to prayer for someone who is sick, or had some negative thing happen in their life. But why is that needed? Does God only listen if someone gets so many prayer requests? Is it a popularity contest? If you don't get enough, too bad you suffer. But if you meet the quota then he'll help?
  
  Help, I'm confused. Thanks.

  I am no theologian, just a scientist. I honestly don't think I could provide a good answer.
  
  However, O-Trap might be able to.
• Mohican00

  

  http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/8u6b