people shouldnt use a god to explain science

I feel god(s) should not be used to explain science in the science forums. When I wanted to know why it rains i definatily dont what to here some mythical explaination about god crying (just a simple example). There is no science involved with religion. Theres no scientific proof for god. So please keep the god theorys for the religion section.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Amen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fine, its your opinion, feel free to express it. but what if there is a God?

also, isn't science the pursuit of knowledge? why limit it? what if the more we know, leads us to belief in God? or the reverse? so,"let the chips fall where they may". As a Christian, I believe that scientists should not be pro- or anti-, they should be explorers, discovers, thinkers, dreamers, why should they bother? its more for the poets, artists, philosophers, etc..., you know, like me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

don't you think its really interesting, that there are so many cycles to replenish needed resources, like carbon, H2O, nitrogen, etc...

au contrare, many early scientists were Christians, etc...
here's a list, some appear more than once because of diff discoveries:
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science2.htm

some scientists today don't believe in darwinism completely, so they may be looking for answers in?
from:
http://s8int.com/nodarwin.html

atheists that believe in miracles,
From:
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm

Quote from "Life Itself", (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981), book available:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671255630/102-8915878-7836967?v=glance
who was Crick:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24495-2004Jul29.html

ahh, Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for a Creator" would argue that point with you, its strongest case being Biochemistry & Biological Info in Ch's 8 & 9. The weakest is Physics Ch 6, since life evolved in this universe, then it necessarily has to live within the parameters of this universe's physical laws.

that would not be very fair, since many anti-god people, who claim to be scientific sure like to post in those forums, should they be kept out? Or are you pleading for special exalted status?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Randolfo....supa!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What does it matter to science if there is a God?
Science is the practice of studying natural phenomena and attemtping to understand what exactly is happening and why.
Whether or not "God invented it" doesn't change a thing, it is there, and science deals with understanding how it works.

It is fairly impossible to not BE pro or anti anything in reality.
It is, however, possible to not allow your religious beliefs to interfere with your fair honest and open-minded study of science.
If that's what you are saying, then I agree 100%.

Yes.
The cycles are endlessly intriguing.
That's exactly why I love studying and learning about them.
I'm not sure I see the point here.

Please see my point above about practicing good science and not allowing your religious beliefs to interfere.

And?
I also think Darwinism is incomplete at best.
I also think that careful examination of the evidence supporting EVERY theory should be performed over and over again under the differing light of new discoveries.
What does this have to do with God?
Oh, let me guess. If Darwinsim is proven to be incomplete that's a shoe-in for Creationism? Hardly!

There is a HUGE difference between saying, "I believe in miracles!" and "origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle".
The first is a religious point of view, the second, which I quoted from your quote, is a scientific one.
What Crick said amounts to, "We still don't know. It is a great mystery that science is trying to get to the bottom of."
Please, at least be honest in your arguments, and do not claim that Crick said he believes in miracles.

Lee Strobel's book is pathetic aplologistic crap that does not stand up to even routine scrutiny.

The good, honest atheistic scientists do exactly what the good, honest theistic scientists do. They leave God out of it and study the physical, natural world. The things that CAN BE studied. The rest of it (anything that can NOT be physically observed directly or indirectly) belongs in the realm of Religion and Philosophy.

 

god has NOTHING to do with science you cannot explain any science with, god this, god that, NO life is that simple GIve me some hard scientific evidence for god then you can use god as a reason to explain things. THat is my point!!! I dont care if the man who discovered aneseptics was christian; prove to me god helped and then ill change my mind. You critize darwins theory but its a theory; we once thought the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe. OVer time we will discover but GOD AS NO PART IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD SO LEAVE GOD FOR THE RELIGION SECTION. !PLEASE!

science forums are for scientific bussiness so enough of your simple bantar

 

so god forums are for God business & business forums are for business' business, wow! you may have a point there.
as for simple, if it really were so smple, you would bandy about all your irrevocable proofs, & shut us up for good, why can't you, if its so simple?

also, if you're so logical, why do you even bother? you should raise one eyebrow, ala Mr. Spock & leave us feckless humans to our merry business, why do you care?

why did you even start this thread?

 

Science discovered what god is a long time ago.

The religious leaders fear science because it exposes religion for what it really is. Religions come and go, some may linger but there beliefs and practices change with time. Science does not fail, over 2000 years ago science found answers that still holds true today. Your home stands true to the science formed under gods that no longer exist.

The study of man is the science that understands the origins of god. These scientists understand that god and religion are human creations, designed to help order societies. They know that man has never known the truth and never shall, and that religions that preach this assumed truth will die out, for man is not a fool.

Religion is a blister on the record of man, using the assumed truth as a weapon to gain power and wealth. There will be a time when the gods of man will no longer exist and that the mortal individual can find comfort and communion with out the need for lies and deception.

Man must face a final test, the test of domestication. Should we fail we will die out, religion drives our domestication, with its weapons it traps us holding us back from adventure, knowledge and the will to survive.

Individuality, cultural diversity, are the hallmarks of mans greatest achievements, science is the non judge, the great finders of method, the giver of prosperity, the tool that reduces suffering, the books that bring clarity, the creator of beasts to attend man needs. Science is the bringer of unknowns and the destroyer of gods.

So next you pray give thanks to science, for without it we would be nothing but suffering barbarians, hungrily scratching the Earth for the bare minimum of lifes joy.

To place religion into the works of science is heresy to scientists, those that do will be forgotten, there delusions lost. Dont be fools, dont expose your self to heresy, except god for the fable it is and live within the love of humanity.

 

You do understand mate that these are assumptions. Any leader in any power should fear "religion" in it's "true" state. Then again, religion like science can be used for good or evil. Science as well has changed over time. Is this a bad thing? No, everything will mold to perfection.

I agree with you that religion has been used to order societies (when taken out of context). Has anything else been used to order societies? Is religion the only to fall to this judgement? Could you also list some of these "scientists"? If we will never know the truth, then what is science trying to do? As for the fool part, there are many ignorant people who wish to remain ignorant. These are the people who would be your barbarians....

If one will never know the truth, they will live with lies and deception. I don't mean to take apart what you say, but you already mentioned we will never know the truth....

Could you explain this more clearly. I think I understand what you mean but I'd like examples so I'm not misguiding my thoughts.

Does Science destroy God? Or does it trace it's outline? Science is humans understanding of the world, it's our tool. Science itself is not the truth, but the tool humans used to acheive it. It's not the only tool though....

Science isn't the only thing that gets my thanks.

There are many scientists that have done heresy to the works of science (by your standards)....but you stand on their shoulders.


Yes, for the love of humanity...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fred

 

I was talking about religious leaders not leaders. A good leader will not use religious dogma to govern. State and church should never meet.

The products of science can be used for good or evil, but the process of scientific understanding is not good or evil.

That is the very nature of science, nothing is true and at the drop of a hat our understanding may change. Yet some things don't change. The circumference of a circle, pi, the length of the hypotenuse, force and leverage where all discovered over 2000 years ago and have not changed in the slightest.

We as humans do need order, and in the past when understanding was limited religion was a good tool. Now we are aware of the folly of assumed truth, that there is no one true religion. We are educated and demand a fair system for all irregardless of religion.

Yes and Anthropologists, archeologists, psychiatrists to name a few

Ahh the basic presumption of religious types defending there faith in the light of science. Science does not set out to find truth, it is a tool to help us understand, it gives us methods not truth

Science does not ostracize the individual, sciences greatest achievement is to help all of man not just the believers.

This may well be a pet of mine and will need its own thread. Later.

Metaphors, there is no god, gods.

Science is the only tool avalible for understanding. You're almost there.

They may call them selves a scientist but this does not make them one, side stepping the scientific method may give you fame and fortune but it is not scientific.
The shoulders I stand upon, that we all stand on, is solid and trust worthy for there is no deception, lies or magic parlor tricks. It is available to all to improve upon.. Science is not a religion

 

Wrong. Science is a methodology which explores only those questions to which the methodology can provide answers. True, the range of those questions has grown as the base of science broadens, but always there are other questions that have been addressed in other ways, by religion and philosophy.

But most of what 'science' found 2000 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 500 years ago would now be considered nonsense. Science fails repeatedly then picks itself up and begins again. Science has changed dramatically not just in its beliefs, but also in its methodology. One can make an argument that science as we would recognise it today was not in place till Newton's time.

 

I'll grant you that, I'm sure he didn't know then, ...

but I wonder what Crick thinks now? seeing he should be on the other side of death & either know the answer or wish he did

pathetic? so is Lee lying when he says that the drawings showing embryos by Ernst Haeckel were fudged to show similarities that were not there? via selective samples, samplying during diff developmental stages, using the same drawings to represent diff embryos, to make them appear more similar that they are in real life? all in an effort to show that all complex life is related.
read pp. 47 to 55 (in hardback edition).

though I would tend to agree, there have been many new theories that go into the realm of or fringe of the supernatural; see Quantum mechanics, or string theory, for example. Why do you think some people are saying that this ideas fit nicely into Zen?

 

Hum,
Zen is not a religion.

Science must sometimes take into account the `human aspect` to deal with what it seeks or finds. We have a planet named Pluto, yet i don’t think that the discoverer believed in Greek gods...

 

Obviously you dont understand what science is about. It is religion that fails and must reinvent its self

Some of the "nonsense" you speak of...
600BC
Thales of Miletus arguing from the fact that wherever there is life, there is moisture, speculated that the basic stuff of nature is water. Uses geometry to solve problems such as calculating the height of pyramids and the distance of ships from the shore.
Theodorus of Samos credited with invention of ore smelting and casting, water level, lock and key, carpenter's square, and turning lathe.
530BC
Pythagoras proposes that sound is a vibration of air. Musical intervals on the arithmetical ratios of the lengths of string at the same tension, 2:1 giving an octave, 3:2 the fifth, and 4:3 the fourth.
500BC
Xenophanes examined fossils and speculated on the evolution of the earth.
480BC
Parmenides is said to have been the first to assert that the Earth is spherical in shape.
450BC
Anaxagoras of Athens taught that the moon shines with the light of the sun and so was able to explain the eclipses.
Hippias of Elis invents the quadratrix which may have been used by him for trisecting an angle and squaring the circle.
Theodorus of Cyrene shows that certain square roots are irrational.
420BC
Democritus of Abdera developed Leucippus's atomic theory: Atoms vibrate when hitched together in solid bodies and exist in a space which is infinite in extent and in which each star is a sun.
323BC
Pytheas, tides are caused by the moon.
300BC
Eukleides, better known as Euclid, describes the law of reflection.
250BC
Archimedes of Syracuse A body immersed in fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid and the calculation of the value of pi.
240BC
Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the diameter of the earth.
Diocles, in On Burning Mirrors , proved the focal property of a parabola and showed how the Sun's rays can be made to reflect a point by rotating a parabolic mirror
170BC
Parchment, superior to papyrus because it can be printed on both sides and folded, was invented in Pergamon.
45BC
Sosigenes of Alexandria designed a calendar of 365.25 days which was introduced by Julius Caesar.

The list can go on and on... Science is timeless.

 

You may be right. What was it in my post that made my ignorance of science so obvious? I believe one of the purposes of the forum is to foster understanding of science, so your comments on this could be helpful to me.

 

Hmmm, beg to differ, see below:
http://www.kaikracht.de/zen/english/
http://www.mkzc.org/kubisze.html
http://hanshananigan.tripod.com/zenrel.html
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/zen.html

 

Whoa
People sure do get passionate when the god vs science argument raises it's ugly head. Perhaps each 'camp' should consider for a moment that the other is right. Why don't the scientists prove once and for all that there is no god and the fundamentalists prove there is. Hopefully there will be a very long period of silence during which the rest of us can work through things that might be really useful to a scientific debate. :bugeye:

 

wow I didn't expect my comments to work quite so effectively...

 

Let’s try a kick start:

This is to Blindman
In an earlier post I stated:

You replied:

I invited you to explain

While awaiting your response I have had time to contemplate and now find your earlier contention to be wrong. I do understand what science is about. It is a methodology for learning about the natural world.

In crude terms this methodology involves observation; formulation of hypotheses; testing of hypotheses; acceptance, rejection or modification of said hypotheses. The process continues, refining the detail. Periodically a previously overlooked detail, or unaddressed puzzle, causes an established hypothesis to be abandoned. That rejection of provisional hypotheses and abandonment of established ones is an integral part of the scientific method and of science. That is science failing repeatedly then picking itself up and beginning again.

You provide an impressive list of the accomplishments of early scientists. You fail to list the many ideas they held that we would now consider false, even nonsense. Here is an instance from your first example.

Smart chap. The first of the Greeks to seek natural explanations rather than appealing to the gods. He got Greek science off to a very good start, but naturally he got most things wrong. He believed that:

The land floats on water. Wrong
Earthquakes are caused by roughness in the oceans on which the land floats. Wrong
He believed water to be the fundamental element and all other materials to be derived from it. Wrong
[By the way, since none of Thales writings have survived, the origin of his idea about water being the primeval source actually comes from speculation by Aristotle.]

Early scientists were wrong more often than they were right. Later scientists had to correct their errors. The process continues. In science there is no shame in being wrong. It is how science advances.

I do not object to accusations of ignorance. I am hugely ignorant and so present a large and attractive target. In future, however, I would appreciate it if those accusations were supported by evidence. That would be the scientific approach.

 

You can never find God through science. People who try usually become atheists. God requires that we first have faith then he will reveal himself bit by bit in his own time. God created the heavens and the Earth in a manner that would not prove his existence. His plan requires that we live by faith and not just have it all given to us without it. This runs counter to the scientific method were proof is required first. This causes many scientists to dismiss God in a very unscientific manner. In science just because something cannot be proven is not evidence in itself that something does not exist. It is a major leap of logic to say that if evolution is true, therefore there is no God, or if the big bang is true there can be no God. God and science are not mutually exclusive.