Science

What are all the ohter factors and how have they been proven to factor into all of this issue. You might have some credibility if there were not about 8000 competing thories on why this is happening.

Religion has as much historical and archelogical proof as evolution - if not more. The gaps must be filled by faith.

 

Nothing in science is proven. The only proofs are mathematical. In science, it is either theory or hypothesis. But it works.

name two.

Which religion? Which specific religious story? Be specific. Which miracle has evidence? Name a single one. Without miracles, there is no Christianity. Christianity without the divine miracles is just a watered down Confucianism.

And gaps in scientific theory ARE NOT filled by faith. That is completely and utterly wrong. That is not science.

 

actually, i think you're wrong there. it could be argued that belief in science is like belief in religion, but it's not the same as belief in *a religion*.

it's one thing to say "i think there's more" (religion) but quite another to say "and this is it" (christianity, for example).

part and parcel of taking a scientific view of the world is accepting that our knowledge is ever expanding. today's theory of evolution might look pretty good until we discover something else. lamarck thought he'd nailed it way back when, but now his theory looks silly -- not because religion was the antidote to the misunderstanding, but because science advanced.

religion, on the other hand, doesn't really tend to amend itself. and when it does, not everybody agrees. you don't find many folks who still believe outdated scientific theories, but there are plenty of people who still believe all sorts of different competing religions.

 

and yet you trust science to tell you what's happening at the edge of the universe? science doesn't claim to be perfect and unerring.

 

prove it.

 

are you going to suggest that christianity might change course on that subject? science is amenable to -- and in fact searches for -- new information and theories. religion, not so much.

when you discover something doesn't do what you think, you figure out why and what it acually is doing, then fold that into your system. it's called learning.

 

believing in science doesn't require picking one of those theories and sticking with it. THAT would be faith.

"religion" has proof? i don't follow how you're using the word religion here.

 

Are you serious? Are you aware how many denominations there are? Each one equates to a new theory.

Right, and religion does the same thing. You don't, however, invalidate all the entire previous work, you simply look at it through a new lens.

 

number is not the point. the point is that science embraces new solutions. religion does not. when a new theory explains things better than the old one, then most scientists accept the new one. when a new religion sprouts up, then it's just another religion.

with science, you can say that lamarck's view of evolution fell out of favor when darwin came up with his theory. did catholocism fade away when martin luther protested?

you certainly invalidate the work that is counter to what the new theory states. it would be pointless to try to solve cuting edge physics problems using purely newtonian methods. of course, religion isn't like science -- there is no way to invalidate anything because none of it is valid by any rational sense. you can't test it because believers will believe no matter what. you can't compare religion X to religion Y in any objective fashion and see which one fits the emperical data because religion deals with non-empircal data (ie, supernatural forces).

the two are really not that similar.

 

VP, here is a fundamental truth of the universe:
A = A
Even Ayn Rand knew about that truth. From this Law of Identity, we can derive A + A = AA or 1 + 1 = 2.

If that last statement is true, then all of mathematically-modeled, evidence-based science is real. Not belief. You can't get more fundamental than that.