Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
England is proof that religion and science are somewhat compatible
The last statistics I read on England was 80% of the population was non religious, or did not go to church. I think when religion in the US reaches those odds we all will be able to work with the remaining fringe groups. That is if we don’t have a nut in the White House trying to stop research.
The last statistics I read on England was 80% of the population was non religious, or did not go to church. I think when religion in the US reaches those odds we all will be able to work with the remaining fringe groups. That is if we don’t have a nut in the White House trying to stop research.
Its lovely. Our state religion is protestantism though you wouldn't think it. Here is the head of the church of England in a tenner:
But wait whats this at the back?:
Fabulous post, PanTerra! (And you quoted my favorite biologist, SJG ) I put in bold your superb distillation of the bogus Micro-Macro argument. And you correctly nailed its ulterior motive.
Teresa
Thanks, but you could have at least corrected all my typos.
If I had a problem with the LAW of Gravity, I would have stated that. Obviously since my feet are firmly planted on the ground. I do not have any problems with the LAW of Gravity.
I didn't ask about the law of gravity - but you should have a problem with it because it is wrong (or at least incomplete). I asked about the theory of gravity for a reason - it's both newer and more complete than Newton's laws of gravity. You're getting caught up in word games while ignoring that if those word games meant anything, you'd have to reject most of the science of the 20th century.
That's also why I also asked about the germ theory of disease. I think you're being awfully selective about what theories you reject just because they have the word "theory" attached to them. Theory of gravity = fine, nothing wrong with it. Germ Theory of Disease = fine, no problem. Theory of evolution = wild guess by evil atheist scientists.
Quote:
Once again, we have seen MICRO evolution happen. We have never SEEN one species become another species. So please do not talk down to me when I DO know what I am talking about.
It's too bad for this claim that we've witnessed new species evolving both in the wild and in laboratory experiments. Sorry if you assume that pointing out actual scientific facts is talking down to you.
Now, you'll have to forgive me for not reading the entire thread: I'm currently on vacation in the dark ages (Idaho) and the internet here couldn't go slower if it was molasses and the date was January 1st.
Moving on.
I saw the title "religion and science are incompatible" and I had to pop in and share my personal opinion.
I have no problem with people who choose not to be religious- it's their life and heck, I've been there. But to say that science and religion are incompatible is a fundamentally flawed proposition.
The truth is, even our best scientists have no idea where the universe came from. What happened before the big bang? We don't really know. What was it that caused simple amino acids, floating around in the primordial ooze, to suddenly couple together in just the right way to make proteins, and what were the chances of those proteins then coupling up in just the way to make... life? What was it that happened in that instant where a chemical compound became alive? For that matter, are you going to tell me that it was purely coincidence that the exact chemicals needed to do this just happened to be there, correct and perfect down to the subatomic particle?
Furthermore, what exactly is consciousness and why is it that we appear to be the only creatures on the planet to truly posses it?
There's just too much crazy stuff that is so far beyond us that has happened and is happening for me to stomach it all being coincidence. Now, was it the exact God described in the Tanakh? Or is it possible that religious documents like the Tanakh, the Qu'ran, the Bible, are symbolic and not intended to be interpreted literally? That they are supposed to be guides to show us how to live a moral and happy life, with stories that explain why?
Just my buck fifty.
Well how come you do not understand the scientific method regarding theory?
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
hypothesis = micro-theory or theory = macro-hypothesis???
LOL
I just posted this on another thread, but I think it's appropriate here. To me, the difference between science and religion is that science encourages skepticism, and religion discourages it. Curiosity drives science, but skepticism greases the wheels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) I put in bold your superb distillation of the bogus Micro-Macro argument. And you correctly nailed its ulterior motive. 
