But the moment we see something, would you say it's still faith as such? Do we always have to trust our eyes? (As there are illusions as well) - If I start see angels etc, even religious people might not believe me. It would be something I should keep for myself. I've read many discussions between theists and atheists. Apparently, some very knowledgeable atheists appreciate the fact that God is a different "science" and can't be disproved by science. Some consider themselves agnostics. But some "strong atheists" go as far as saying, well, even though they can't "disprove" God as such, they say there's no reason to believe in God. So, after all, I have this feeling that every individual believes in what they want to believe, of course, there are some influences from the outside but still, it's more like a personal matter. And also it tends to be a fight of word choice. Do we really understand the deep nature of things?

 

Once we start extrapolating beyond the limits of the data we have, we're then in the realm of belief, not science.

I like to use the "absolute zero" as an example. I think the realm of belief covers that of science. Science is part of belief and still trying to catch up with belief. Something Bill referred to as "it's not yet the time". But when will it be? I don't know.

 

I like to use the "absolute zero" as an example. I think the realm of belief covers that of science. Science is part of belief and still trying to catch up with belief.

Absolute zero as an example of what? I disagree that science is part of belief. To me the two are separate in that what we believe is neither provable nor disprovable, while a scientific theory is provable in the sense that a given experiment is reproducible. An example of a nonprovable belief is the belief in an afterlife, or not. There are no facts that anyone can bring to bear to support or dispute this belief. Science, and in particular the scientific method, allows you to start with a relatively simple system in a particular state, do something to the system, and observe some result. The experiment you have performed should be reproducible so that anyone else can start with the same initial conditions and observe the same result. We make observations using our senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. While it's true that sometimes our senses are fooled by things such as optical illusions, this is what we have to work with.

If you get out into the far reaches of science, such as cosmology, that's somewhat of a different story. Many of the conjectures about the state of the universe right after the big bang (itself a theory with only a small amount of supporting evidence) are likewise based on very little evidence, and are certainly not reproducible.

 

Interesting topic
I found the following links which i thought were interseting
some scientific facts in ancient hindu texts
http://sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html

some in Quran
http://www.islam101.com/science/GaryMiller.html

some interesting discussions here
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum...FORID:9&q=science+and+religion&sa=Search#1089

Well i dont know how far they are true,but just found it interesting to read.
http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda

 

Ok Mark. Maybe I didn't use the right words to correctly express myself, science might not be part of believe, but still I find them somehow related in the sense that, of course if one believes, God created the science we know and set the entire universe in motion. According to me, if God exists then God is the ultimate "scientist" of all time. If not, still nothing changes, the science we know is simply so because this is how the universe works. We invented the science we know in our own terms based on how things are around us (the oldest invention is probably Arithmetic) to try find the relationship between things and associated "sets of patterns" they seem to obey and as such many of them, if not all, once known can be repeated. If someone finds another kind of science more reliable, then we'll be following his/her science, as it has been the case where some theories stand better than others.

Absolute zero as an example where science doesn't go below it. I also understand the fact that the science of measurement is more precisely "relative measurement". In order to measure something, we need to compare it to some other position or point of reference.

So I did hear from an atheist who once told me that he simply has no reason to believe.

 

Ok Mark. Maybe I didn't use the right words to correctly express myself, science might not be part of believe, but still I find them somehow related in the sense that, of course if one believes, God created the science we know and set the entire universe in motion.

I think we have different definitions of science. It may be that God created the universe and set it in motion, but I don't see how you can say that God created the science. As I see it, science is the intellectual structure that humans have created to help them understand the universe and its workings.

According to me, if God exists then God is the ultimate "scientist" of all time.

I don't think so. God is the creator of everything, not someone who is trying to figure out how it works. We seem to have different ideas about what science is and what scientists are. To me, a scientist is anyone who uses the scientific method to make a hypothesis about how something works.

If not, still nothing changes, the science we know is simply so because this is how the universe works. We invented the science we know in our own terms based on how things are around us

Yes, this is what I am saying.

(the oldest invention is probably Arithmetic) to try find the relationship between things and associated "sets of patterns" they seem to obey and as such many of them, if not all, once known can be repeated. If someone finds another kind of science more reliable, then we'll be following his/her science, as it has been the case where some theories stand better than others.

I think you are confusing science and theories here. Two people can have different theories to explain a particular phenomenon. If one theory produces reliable results (i.e., accurately predicts the future based on a set of initial conditions), and the other doesn't, the unreliable theory will be discredited and relegated to the ash heap of history, because of the reproducibility requirement of the scientific method. For example, the phlogiston theory of heat transfer was once thought to explain how things got hot or cooled off, but expanded knowledge of chemistry caused this theory to be discarded in favor of the caloric theory, and later, thermodynamics. The beauty of science is that it is (ideally) self correcting. When a flawed theory is put forward, it is eventually discarded for one that provides a better explanation.

Another theory (and so-called "science") was phrenology, which held that personality types could be inferred from the shape of the skull. There are many other examples, such as astrology and numerology, none of which could reasonably be called a science.

Absolute zero as an example where science doesn't go below it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Absolute zero is a theoretical concept that is defined by an atom being at its lowest possible energy level. What do you mean by "science doesn't go below it"? How could an atom have less than zero energy?

I also understand the fact that the science of measurement is more precisely "relative measurement". In order to measure something, we need to compare it to some other position or point of reference.

So I did hear from an atheist who once told me that he simply has no reason to believe.

 

but I don't see how you can say that God created the science. As I see it, science is the intellectual structure that humans have created to help them understand the universe and its workings.

Ok. I agree. My mistake. Thanks for a better explanation.

God is the creator of everything, not someone who is trying to figure out how it works.

I meant that God is the "mastermind" of everything around us. Like as if God has the all the "absolute formulae/ingredients" of his creation.

When a flawed theory is put forward, it is eventually discarded for one that provides a better explanation.

I understand what you mean and I agree. I think you are better at explaining things than me by choosing the right words.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "science doesn't go below it"?

Again, I didn't express myself good enough. What I meant was that, it is the lowest temperature theoretically possible and cannot be reached by any means so far. So, the world of thermodynamics won't consider anything below that temperature. So, I was thinking maybe that could be an example when you said earlier that:-

"Once we start extrapolating beyond the limits of the data we have, we're then in the realm of belief, not science."

Did I understand you well? If not could you please illustrate an example.

Thanks. I can think clearer now.

 

Sounds like we're on the same page in a lot of areas. On your question about absolute zero, this wikipedia page has some interesting information, including some about negative Kelvin temperatures, and how close to absolute zero we have cooled something - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero.

 

Indeed we were, but you are better at explaining it. Thanks.

 

Hello,

This link was thrown at me when debating on abiogenesis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm

I would appreciate your comments.

Thanks.

 

What about it do you question or need to expand upon? That experiment is well documented and verified. Moreover, among organic chemists dealing with hetero atoms, such as oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, exchanges between one molecule and another are also well known.

There was debate about how preference for the L (S) isomers for most amino acids arose. As I recall, some experiments have shed light on that question.

John

 

You are here your parents are here or passed away,there Is plenty
of documentation about man and animal the plantets.There are
resonable documentaries that explain life from fossils that exist.
Religon has It history,new things are found every day,the stars
and patterns stay in place.We know that we can go space,there
are secret projects that are going on as we speak.So we must
depend on others to form an opinion, who are you going to believe,
give me an example where chat changed the world.It could be said
that It's miracle that we can communicate by computer.Anything new
that you know and prove as fact. An example the electronic theory
some people with equpiment can see bunky balls. Hubble will tell us
new things about space.Things to talk about,talk about research
that will cure us of disease,that will do us in quicker the a-bomb.
The new flu taken from the headlines kills people every day,history
will tell like most things.More to talk about, a lab person learned
that working with frogs he did not have to empty the waste basket.
With rats he had to empty all the time,they rot and smell.Simple but
Important things that lead to new drug.

 

My concern was about creating or say producing life. Amino acids referred to as "building blocks of life".

 

<snip>

Please check item 8 of the forum rules regarding advertising. Thank you - Dave

 

I respect what others believe, but I can't see how they believe in the Big Bang theory. Life on Earth is so complex and interesting that I dont see how a bang could result in humans, billions of plants, insects, animals. We've inhabited this planet for quite some time and there is still numerous things we haven't found or discovered. I believe there was a plan.

I think "The Privileged Planet" is the best literary work on intelligent design ever written. It should be required reading by every scientist and engineer (and electronics tech!)

Eric

 

All the gene's has been Id's,study away. Chomozone's and all that stuff,
Info available.What there to talk about on electronic forum.That the answer
I would get,I like to talk or listen to what make's us tick. How certain nationally
only get some disease. How organs will be harvested. I may need a wire connected
some day,according to some.You may look at It is an other way,that I am wired now
It's all In a person's view. Since we all operate from a black hole,If there Is such
a thing. Some go out of there way to avoid my trip wire,and have comment on
my post.They jump right over my post. Saturday I had tourist to take my picture
with a family member,I wonder what they saw,why me,why me.Want to learn more
stop by my post. Loosewire

 

Agree with rifaa

 

I think there is plenty of room for science AND God. As I always say, science is just us humans in our pathetic attempt at understanding what God has created.

If string theory says there are 11 dimensions, to me that shows just how little we understand. Maybe there are. Maybe there are 200 dimensions. How the heck do we know?

The big bang theory (as a weapon of atheists) is flawed in one significant way. Okay so the universe was full of energy and all that energy condensed into matter. Fine. Where did all that energy come from in the first place? Why can't you understand that perhaps this was the way in which God created the universe? If you were going to create the universe wouldn't you do it in some insane explosion? Do we even understand the material from which God is made? (I feel weird saying this, but its true) Can we ever understand this? Probably not.

There is room for both. To me nothing that science has discovered ever proved the absence of God. Quite on the contrary. The universe is so amazing, it did not just appear out of nowhere one day. Come on now.

P.S. there is plenty room for the bible to coexist with science. Just don't take dates in the old testament seriously.

All this is just what I believe, if someone believes something else, that's fine. We can get along.

 

Science is indeed not here to prove anything about God, but just a nice tool, amazingly expressed in the mathematical language, to help us make the most of our physical world by studying it's behaviour.

Actually count volta, atheists "believe" that there's a logical answer to everything, it's just that they haven't had the answer yet. Maybe one day some scientists will find out where that energy came from, let's not forget the fundamental law of conservation of energy in physics.

 

I am reminded that time is man-made and irrevelent.

No one, to date, has been able to correlate God's time with what we call the second, hour, day, month, or year.

The 6500 years old is probably something used to protray the age of the earth in a reference we all could understand. Does that make it correct? Nope.

The two theories can co-exist. After all, humans agreed upon the definition of a second. They disagree upon creation.