are science and religion connected?

[DuskMarthWater]

Just so you all know, I don't know that much about the Big Bang. I'm not that scientifically educated.

Hmmm...if you ask the question why for long enough, or the question how, you will eventually reach a dead end. How did the Big Bang happen? How did the reason for it happen? Why were there planets and suns already in existence? Where did they come from? NOT when did they come from, but where? If they were made from matter, then where did that matter come from? Why was it there in the first place for science to say that it was used in the creation of this or that? How did it get there? And if you have an explanation for how it got there, why did that explanation happen, or how did that explanation occur? Eventually, there is a point where no one can answer the questions anymore. At least, not humans.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

It's useless guys, just... don't.

His posts are all built around the same gullible logic.

1) I misinterpret science (or completely ignore valuable information that I could get on the net)
2) The misinterpretation now succeeds in opening to door to an almighty being.
3) God is proved.

I stopped reading at #1 and I don't think anybody should waste his time instructing a 13 years old. If you even refute his argument, he'll jump on another concept that he probably won't understand any better and you'll have to give him a biology 101 class to refute his idiocy.

Shiny Noctowl: Here's a website if, one day, you have the motivation to actually understand evolution concepts. Nobody should be entitled to teach you things you don't know, and you should have a minimum of intellectual honesty in the debate hall.

-- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=41

According to evolution, mutations occur completely by chance. However, beneficial mutations are rare. Therefore, evolution should take billions of years to form even the simplest organisms. However, in that time, humans have come around.

Furthermore, how could things like wings and the propulsion system used by bacteria with flagella when those things, when partially evolved, are completely useless?

 

[AltF4]

Erich:

What you're doing is bringing up (valid) problems with the "Classical" Big Bang model. The one they teach in high school science class. It does a decent job of giving you a broad and conceptual idea of how it all went down, but isn't the whole story. Your teachers left some things out. (Btw: Just about everything your high school science teachers told you is a lie. Sorry!)

All of your points are bringing up contradictions that occur at what is called the boundary conditions of time and/or space. For example, if you ask the question "What was the universe like at the VERY MOMENT of creation?" (Time = 0) You are asking a question about the boundary condition of time. If you ask "Is space infinite? Or does it end?" You are asking a question about the boundary condition of space.

The thing is, that these contradictions only arise when you HAVE a boundary to space and time.

For example, if space suddenly ended and there was an invisible "wall" at the edge of it, that would break every scientific law known and would be utterly contradictory. But if there is no wall, then we no longer have any contradictions!

Similarly, if there was no actual moment of creation (no Time = 0), then we have no contradictions that arise from a boundary condition. Because there is no boundary.

Steven Hawking developed a formal theory called the "No Boundary Proposal" that describes in greater detail just that: Time and Space have no boundaries, and thus no contradictions associated with them.

Give it a Google.

 

[The Executive]

*explanation of no boundary proposal*

You know, you've been saying this for months, but I just now got it...wow...

People say it's good to question what you believe, I guess this is one of those times.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

Science isn't necessarily valid because it makes two assumptions. No matter how obvious they seem, you can't assume them without proof. The two assumptions are:
1. The senses (and therefore empirical evidence) are reliable.
2. The scientific method is valid. (This assumes that #1 is true.)

 

[AltF4]

I know! I'm sorry if it seems like I say it all the time, but I need to all the time!

It's one of those common misconceptions that a lot of people have that has an honest reply. The problem is that it's a little advanced.


But I'm glad that it's making a bit of sense to you. I remember specifically sitting in class with my teacher saying "Now at one time, the whole universe was trapped into a tiny ball, and then it exploded!" And I thought instantly "... well... wait a minute! Where did that ball come from?! And what caused it to explode?!"

Asking those questions is a good thing. It means you're thinking things through rationally. They are real problems with that explanation you were given. It just so happens, however, that there is more to the story.




That being said, I don't see how this thread is relevant. YES: Science and religion are connected. There, problem solved, lol.

 

[blazedaces]

Science isn't necessarily valid because it makes two assumptions. No matter how obvious they seem, you can't assume them without proof. The two assumptions are:
1. The senses (and therefore empirical evidence) are reliable.
2. The scientific method is valid. (This assumes that #1 is true.)

1. We have machines that are much more reliable then our senses... or are you questioning the idea of observation? What in the world are you saying?

2. Define valid. Do you mean valid in that it achieves the goals it desires? Do you even know what is the scientific method? I request you go look up the scientific method and post it so you can refer to it from now on.

Please stop reading websites and then posting here exactly those asinine remarks without checking a shred of easily available information on the subject.

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

1. We have machines that are much more reliable then our senses... or are you questioning the idea of observation? What in the world are you saying?

2. Define valid. Do you mean valid in that it achieves the goals it desires? Do you even know what is the scientific method? I request you go look up the scientific method and post it so you can refer to it from now on.

Please stop reading fundamentalist websites and then posting here exactly those asinine remarks without checking a shred of easily available information on the subject.

-blazed

Can we stop assuming that every shred of non-evidence posted in this thread comes from a 'fundamentalist website'? Evangelical Christians aren't the only people who have issues with science (just the most prominent, least combative, and easiest to ridicule).

Also, to all new posters: DO YOUR RESEARCH. It doesn't help your point when you draw up a copy+paste argument with no backing.

</rant>

 

[blazedaces]

Can we stop assuming that every shred of non-evidence posted in this thread comes from a 'fundamentalist website'? Evangelical Christians aren't the only people who have issues with science (just the most prominent, least combative, and easiest to ridicule).

Also, to all new posters: DO YOUR RESEARCH. It doesn't help your point when you draw up a copy+paste argument with no backing.

</rant>

Fine, on my end, I apologize for making that assumption. I've changed my post slightly and removed the word fundamental.

I'll try not to let it happen again...

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

Many thanks, blazed.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm...you are an interesting person to talk with Alt4Warrior. You have a very vast intellect, and it's pretty cool to discuss things with you. I am still in high school, so that was interesting to read about your post and the "No Boundary Proposal." Learn something new everday eh? And I definitely agree, science and religion are connected. I'll have to look that up...wow, I had no idea such intelligent people existed. I'm not really all that into this stuff in the first place, but when you make posts I have to read over 20 times to understand, I think I need to look it up!

 

[AltF4]

Haha! Thanks, I guess. But I don't think I';m quite deserving of that much praise.


Here's the most important thing I can possibly stress when discussing physics: The universe is under no obligation to behave in a way that "makes sense" to you. It follows the rules of mathematics, and wherever that takes it. If you do not understand mathematics, you will not understand the universe. Don't ever discount something on the basis of "it sounds too weird to be true".

If it works on paper: It works.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

A very true statement, that. If something doesn't sound plausible or possible it does not mean it is impossible.