Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Gunhaver, Oct 8, 2012.
The difference between science and religion...
Edit: On second thought, I won't stir the pot unnecessarily.
A young minister gets an idea for a new slant on a New Testament story. Hes never heard of it before, so he assumes no one else has either. He does no research at all, writes it up and uses it for his next sermon. Several members of the congregation have heard the ministers approach before and know its been shot down by biblical scholars. But they dont tell him. Theres no point in discouraging the guy. He made a good point using bad data, but no one was hurt. No harm, no foul.
A young researcher gets an idea for a new slant on particle physics. Hes never heard of it before, but he knows he cant assume its new. He does his homework and cant find any reference to his idea. In the lab, he does some preliminary experiments and they look good. Then he spends weeks going through every experiment he can think of to disprove his hypothesis. He knows other scientists will do their best to shoot holes in it and he doesnt want to look like an ignorant fool. In the end, it still looks good, so he writes it up and submits it to a peer-reviewed journal. Two months later, they send it back. The young researcher has made a mistake. His hypothesis is invalid. The concept of no harm, no foul never occurred to the review committee.
I wish you would. You're so good at it. Plus my thread is dying.
"The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research" -Albert Einstein
Your thread isn't dying, it's dead.
Threads die quickly for one of two reasons in this room...
1. Because they're true and no one can intelligently argue against them (This one).
2. Because they're written by crazy people and no one even bothers to read them (Anything you've written).
Very well, I wouldn't want to disappoint.
A religious explanation for Hurricane Sandy is:
-it's Allah's punishment of the kuffars for Afghanistan and Iraq
But others claim...
-it's Allah's punishment of the kuffars for that Mohammed video
Then there's the "scientific" explanation...
-it was caused by global warming and climate change
I like it!
I'm sure the jihadists are dancing in the streets the second they get wind of the destruction on the east coast.
Dancing in streets and in and out of buildings that every day look like the streets and buildings in NY and NJ do now. Misery loves company.
Also, I don't know about global warming but one day there wasn't a hurricane and the next there was. I'd call that climate change.
Link no workie. The suspense is killing me.
Nope, that's not the scientific explanation.
If I had a dollar for every time...
If you can measure it, it is science.
If you cannot measure it, it is opinion.
Religion cannot be measured.
Religion is opinion.
Religion is not fact.
You forgot one.
Science cannot measure a singularity. Science is clueless on the nature of singularities. The math keeps coming up infinity. And to physicists, infinity is a dead end.
Science cannot measure dark energy. Science is clueless about the nature of dark energy.
Science cannot measure dark matter. Though indications of dark matter can be seen by way of gravitational lensing.
We know there is something holding the universe together and something is accelerating it's expansion, but cannot be directly detected.
True scientists accept there is far more that we don't know than we do know. Some things are right, and some things turned out to be wrong.
Science didn't used to be able to measure gravity, temperature, planetary orbits, electricity, nuclear fusion, neutrinos or Higgs Boson particles until it could. Does that mean that all of those things were untrue until science caught up with them? What evidence do you have of a clear line between what's possible to understand and what isn't?
The universe operates independently of our ability to explain it.
Still have problems with understanding and are driven by emotional abnormalities as usual.
I am pointing out that theories have been proven right and proven wrong and that there is still much more that we have not proven and what has not been proven remains a matter of 'hope the theory is right'. Kind of like faith, huh?
Unknown till known. that simple.
As I said, true science understanding people understand how much we have yet to discover. A true scientist always keeps an open mind until firm evidence confirms or debunks a concept or theory.
I hope you realize the Big Bang theory is based on circumstantial evidence. That being the observed expansion.
Scientists assume that if the expansion were reversed, all matter and energy would converge to a central point... a singularity. All the math involved is based on that assumption. The laws of physics break down at the singularity.
I happen to agree with the BBT at this point because it is the most logical though it still has some problems.
But then there's M-theory. Controversial in the scientific community and has more problems than the BBT.
Perhaps some day physicists will detect dark energy. We only know it's there because of the accelerating expansion of the universe which until 1998 scientists thought the universe would slow and contract to a big crunch. Still could if the dark energy, which composes about 74% of the universe, weakens and gravity gets the upper hand. Dark matter is about 22% and the visible about 4%.
Try to keep an open mind. It does much for understanding.
since your statement "religion is not a fact" is merely a series of words arranged in a certain order to articulate a concept and cannot be measured then it is ultimately just your opinion.
can concepts be measured?
can truth be measured?
can logic be measured?
can love be measured?
can morality be measured?
can trust be measured?
can honesty be measured?
can wisdom be measured?
according to you, if something cannot be swished around in a test tube or examined under a microscope then they are merely opinions.
as mentioned in a previous post, perhaps you should study the issues a little more objectively, if understanding is your sincere goal (which I doubt it is).
The existence of God is merely an opinion.
If not, please prove he/she/it actually exists.
Wouldn't the non-existence of God also be an opinion?