100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Religion and Science can't come to terms... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Sorry again don't mean demean or antyhing, but weather it be scientific theory or just a theory, it's just an educated guess. Because if it were truly a "fact" it wouldn't be either "theories", it would be a scientific fact. That's the difference between theory and fact, one is absolute without a doubt, the other is "guessing" at points... or in other hands stating things along the lines of "assumptions" it will continue to be true, but again has no absolute fact behind it. Uh, no. A scientific theory explains how something works. It isn't a guess because it has been tested for accuracy. Sadly, scientific laymen have their own definition of "theory" that is different from the definition used by scientists. No matter how you wish to twist that word, if it's scientific "theory" or just a "theory" it boils down to an educated guess. One may have more "factual" basisis if you will, it's still not accepted as an "absolute" fact. And as long as it's not a "fact" it's just a "guess/hypothesis" ect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Pansytilly
on
Thu 06/11/15 05:54 PM
|
|
A thousand years for us is just a day for God...
In my simplistic mind, the way i see it, scientific evidence rests on repeated occurrences that we can observe/test under a set of conditions over time. We study something and analyze it, experiment and expand or minimize it in order to find it's application in our daily lives. This is the purpose science serves. Can we use science to prove God? I think not. Up to a certain extent, science has its uses in helping us come to terms with the magnanimity and infallibility of God who created the world with both order and chaos, depending on how you see it. But just as we have limitations in pushing the envelop of science, which we perpetually try to overcome but never know when to stop, the same goes with our knowledge of God. That is partly what defines us as human-- the desire to search for something more than what we know. Just as i think there are some things in scientific advancement should probably not be tested and used for the time being, lest we abuse it and jeopardize ourselves more than benefit mankind, i do think it is foolish for us to attempt at observing God and testing his reality as if he is some sort of mere scientific phenomenon that we can compartmentalize, store, catalog, and get back to when we find it necessary to. In the grand scheme of things, proof of God is on a personal level, taken on faith and backed up with our own experiences of and relationship with him. We can no more explain the reality of God based on simple science than we can explain the reality of love and hate based on chemical and electrical transmissions in our neural system. Religion is just an institutionalized, organized and arbitrary label we use to indicate a set of beliefs or philosophies. It doesn't define God nor science. Well again...that is just my opinion as it is being processed in my simplistic mind... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how you wish to twist that word, if it's scientific "theory" or just a "theory" it boils down to an educated guess. One may have more "factual" basisis if you will, it's still not accepted as an "absolute" fact. And as long as it's not a "fact" it's just a "guess/hypothesis" ect. You have proven my point about scientific laymen having their own definition of "theory" that is different from the definition used by scientists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard Model says the big bang happened due to a quantum fluctuation some 17.3 billion years ago from singularity where everything in the whole universe started from nothing. Gradually, the energy condensed and formed particles called quarks which have different mass, spin and charge etc.
These quarks, also called up, down, side, charm etc. further gave rise to many sub-atomic particles and then its history. Now, some of these particles follow the quantum phenomena where and external observer is required to know their dual existence - wave and particle nature. Also, their location and momentum cannot be measured at the same time. So, what is the clue from here? Don't you think there is a relationship between 'consciousness' and the requirement of an 'observer' for the existence of the particles' dual properties? We need to have more research on unifying the two. My question is - If an observer is required to exhibit the dual properties of such particles, there must be a pervading consciousness in the universe that was responsible for their existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whew this is heavy reading, the way i see it is is that both are penned by people. Science may be like a blue print and religion the building or vise versa. One shows the dimensions and the other the reality of it, without one the other does not really fulfill its specific purpose. But until we (people) reach a certain stage of maturity (enlightenment etc.), these two will always be placed apart. Without religion community may as well be a jungle(spiritual evolution), without science we still may be in in caves afraid to venture out (intellectual evolution). With these two together we make decisions that are for the betterment of one and all.
Apologies sometimes ideas sound really laid out in my head, if anything take this as an attempt on my part to write something confusing :D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard Model says the big bang happened due to a quantum fluctuation some 17.3 billion years ago from singularity where everything in the whole universe started from nothing. Gradually, the energy condensed and formed particles called quarks which have different mass, spin and charge etc. These quarks, also called up, down, side, charm etc. further gave rise to many sub-atomic particles and then its history. Now, some of these particles follow the quantum phenomena where and external observer is required to know their dual existence - wave and particle nature. Also, their location and momentum cannot be measured at the same time. So, what is the clue from here? Don't you think there is a relationship between 'consciousness' and the requirement of an 'observer' for the existence of the particles' dual properties? We need to have more research on unifying the two. My question is - If an observer is required to exhibit the dual properties of such particles, there must be a pervading consciousness in the universe that was responsible for their existence. What do you mean by "an external observer" being needed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pansytilly,
"The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. ... This can be illustrated with the simple case of a subatomic particle. When observing such a particle, one may choose to measure — among other quantities — the particle's position and its momentum" [1] Passage taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics) You can look up the above link and try to get the full picture. I don't expect you to understand this as no one does..:) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry again don't mean demean or antyhing, but weather it be scientific theory or just a theory, it's just an educated guess. Because if it were truly a "fact" it wouldn't be either "theories", it would be a scientific fact. That's the difference between theory and fact, one is absolute without a doubt, the other is "guessing" at points... or in other hands stating things along the lines of "assumptions" it will continue to be true, but again has no absolute fact behind it. Uh, no. A scientific theory explains how something works. It isn't a guess because it has been tested for accuracy. Sadly, scientific laymen have their own definition of "theory" that is different from the definition used by scientists. No matter how you wish to twist that word, if it's scientific "theory" or just a "theory" it boils down to an educated guess. One may have more "factual" basisis if you will, it's still not accepted as an "absolute" fact. And as long as it's not a "fact" it's just a "guess/hypothesis" ect. Man oh Man,you really ought to delve into the Philosophy of Science,instead of posting those Boners!  !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn.
So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn. So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. yeah that's what I have been thinking about all these days, unless there's something very wrong in my inference. We don't understand any of these but it could mean that if we understood one, we would understand the other. And then the disagreement between religion and science, with regard to the beginning of this universe will no longer exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn. So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. yeah that's what I have been thinking about all these days, unless there's something very wrong in my inference. We don't understand any of these but it could mean that if we understood one, we would understand the other. And then the disagreement between religion and science, with regard to the beginning of this universe will no longer exist. That will only happen if you are able to give concrete evidence as to the existence of this "consciousness". And even then, i'm sure with human nature, there will be those who will want to prove it wrong. But if you take the second statement into deeper consideration, the presence of a "consciousness" that gave existence to everything would also imply that this "consciousness" would have to have set the physical, spiritual, and moral laws and codes that govern whatever it is that we existing in. And that we, as observers of these phenomena, laws and codes, are also being perpetually observed as well...over a period of time, space and dimension...if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of new evidence (from awhile ago) that one species cannot change into another though. With DNA research a new term was coined "intelligent design" If you're talking to me Cheecha, Intelligent Design is just a flimsy disguise for Creationism...Proponents like to say evolution is wrong so Intelligent Design must be right, but the truth is disproving one thing does not prove another...Show me the evidence that disproves evolution...Details please.. The details are right in front of your eyes, if you can see them. The symbiotic relationships of species that cannot survive alone is only one example. Google bacterial flagellum, and look at how complex a cell is. Darwin supposed that cells were simple structures that worked by osmosis when he came up with his theory. Darwin also had some doubts from the lack of transitional fossils. He assumed they would be found later. 150 yrs later they still have not been found. There is no fossil record of anything evolving into a different species. There are changes within species but nothing ever changed into another species. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of new evidence (from awhile ago) that one species cannot change into another though. With DNA research a new term was coined "intelligent design" If you're talking to me Cheecha, Intelligent Design is just a flimsy disguise for Creationism...Proponents like to say evolution is wrong so Intelligent Design must be right, but the truth is disproving one thing does not prove another...Show me the evidence that disproves evolution...Details please.. The details are right in front of your eyes, if you can see them. The symbiotic relationships of species that cannot survive alone is only one example. Google bacterial flagellum, and look at how complex a cell is. Darwin supposed that cells were simple structures that worked by osmosis when he came up with his theory. Darwin also had some doubts from the lack of transitional fossils. He assumed they would be found later. 150 yrs later they still have not been found. There is no fossil record of anything evolving into a different species. There are changes within species but nothing ever changed into another species. Still doesn't change the fact that Intelligent Design does not become the right or accepted 'scientific' theory just by proving evolution is wrong....So far, the evidence for evolution is a clear winner...There is no debate about evolution among the VAST majority of scientists because there is no credible alternative 'scientific' theory...What you refer to is specific mechanism "within" evolution!...Natural selection does not require that ALL structures have the same function or that they even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism!...As many of us have already said, scientific theory is tested, proven over time...Intelligent Design is based on observation alone because it cannot be tested... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of new evidence (from awhile ago) that one species cannot change into another though. With DNA research a new term was coined "intelligent design" If you're talking to me Cheecha, Intelligent Design is just a flimsy disguise for Creationism...Proponents like to say evolution is wrong so Intelligent Design must be right, but the truth is disproving one thing does not prove another...Show me the evidence that disproves evolution...Details please.. The details are right in front of your eyes, if you can see them. The symbiotic relationships of species that cannot survive alone is only one example. Google bacterial flagellum, and look at how complex a cell is. Darwin supposed that cells were simple structures that worked by osmosis when he came up with his theory. Darwin also had some doubts from the lack of transitional fossils. He assumed they would be found later. 150 yrs later they still have not been found. There is no fossil record of anything evolving into a different species. There are changes within species but nothing ever changed into another species. Still doesn't change the fact that Intelligent Design does not become the right or accepted 'scientific' theory just by proving evolution is wrong....So far, the evidence for evolution is a clear winner...There is no debate about evolution among the VAST majority of scientists because there is no credible alternative 'scientific' theory...What you refer to is specific mechanism "within" evolution!...Natural selection does not require that ALL structures have the same function or that they even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism!...As many of us have already said, scientific theory is tested, proven over time...Intelligent Design is based on observation alone because it cannot be tested... The earth is billions of years old, hanging in space in perfect balance. It is just the right distance from the sun and has life in every far corner. What about the human mind? what causes us to think? Where is humanity going from here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Fri 06/12/15 08:07 AM
|
|
There is a lot of new evidence (from awhile ago) that one species cannot change into another though. With DNA research a new term was coined "intelligent design" If you're talking to me Cheecha, Intelligent Design is just a flimsy disguise for Creationism...Proponents like to say evolution is wrong so Intelligent Design must be right, but the truth is disproving one thing does not prove another...Show me the evidence that disproves evolution...Details please.. The details are right in front of your eyes, if you can see them. The symbiotic relationships of species that cannot survive alone is only one example. Google bacterial flagellum, and look at how complex a cell is. Darwin supposed that cells were simple structures that worked by osmosis when he came up with his theory. Darwin also had some doubts from the lack of transitional fossils. He assumed they would be found later. 150 yrs later they still have not been found. There is no fossil record of anything evolving into a different species. There are changes within species but nothing ever changed into another species. Still doesn't change the fact that Intelligent Design does not become the right or accepted 'scientific' theory just by proving evolution is wrong....So far, the evidence for evolution is a clear winner...There is no debate about evolution among the VAST majority of scientists because there is no credible alternative 'scientific' theory...What you refer to is specific mechanism "within" evolution!...Natural selection does not require that ALL structures have the same function or that they even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism!...As many of us have already said, scientific theory is tested, proven over time...Intelligent Design is based on observation alone because it cannot be tested... Just because the vast majority believe something does not mean that it is true. The proof is in the details. The earth is billions of years old, hanging in space in perfect balance. It is just the right distance from the sun and has life in every far corner. What about the human mind? what causes us to think? Where is humanity going from here? *sigh*...You're doing it wrong....Start from the beginning and work your way forward....  ...
 Laters my friend...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn. So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. yeah that's what I have been thinking about all these days, unless there's something very wrong in my inference. We don't understand any of these but it could mean that if we understood one, we would understand the other. And then the disagreement between religion and science, with regard to the beginning of this universe will no longer exist. see, that's not even a theory, that's just science fiction... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn. So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. yeah that's what I have been thinking about all these days, unless there's something very wrong in my inference. We don't understand any of these but it could mean that if we understood one, we would understand the other. And then the disagreement between religion and science, with regard to the beginning of this universe will no longer exist. see, that's not even a theory, that's just science fiction... Some things are stranger and more mysterious  than fiction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn. So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. yeah that's what I have been thinking about all these days, unless there's something very wrong in my inference. We don't understand any of these but it could mean that if we understood one, we would understand the other. And then the disagreement between religion and science, with regard to the beginning of this universe will no longer exist. see, that's not even a theory, that's just science fiction... Some things are stranger and more mysterious than fiction
yea, lol, and it's called science fiction... they don't know enough about quantum physics to have a good working theory yet... to say the universe is a conscious entity is a bit premature... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of new evidence (from awhile ago) that one species cannot change into another though. With DNA research a new term was coined "intelligent design" If you're talking to me Cheecha, Intelligent Design is just a flimsy disguise for Creationism...Proponents like to say evolution is wrong so Intelligent Design must be right, but the truth is disproving one thing does not prove another...Show me the evidence that disproves evolution...Details please.. The details are right in front of your eyes, if you can see them. The symbiotic relationships of species that cannot survive alone is only one example. Google bacterial flagellum, and look at how complex a cell is. Darwin supposed that cells were simple structures that worked by osmosis when he came up with his theory. Darwin also had some doubts from the lack of transitional fossils. He assumed they would be found later. 150 yrs later they still have not been found. There is no fossil record of anything evolving into a different species. There are changes within species but nothing ever changed into another species. Still doesn't change the fact that Intelligent Design does not become the right or accepted 'scientific' theory just by proving evolution is wrong....So far, the evidence for evolution is a clear winner...There is no debate about evolution among the VAST majority of scientists because there is no credible alternative 'scientific' theory...What you refer to is specific mechanism "within" evolution!...Natural selection does not require that ALL structures have the same function or that they even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism!...As many of us have already said, scientific theory is tested, proven over time...Intelligent Design is based on observation alone because it cannot be tested... Smart person above. Listen to her. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol...no worries. I'm willing to learn. So from what i gather... On one hand you are saying that physical quantum phenomena requires an observer (human) to exist. On the other hand, you are also saying that there is a "consciousness" that made it possible for energy to condense prior to the existence of the said physical quantum phenomena. yeah that's what I have been thinking about all these days, unless there's something very wrong in my inference. We don't understand any of these but it could mean that if we understood one, we would understand the other. And then the disagreement between religion and science, with regard to the beginning of this universe will no longer exist. see, that's not even a theory, that's just science fiction... Some things are stranger and more mysterious than fiction
yea, lol, and it's called science fiction... they don't know enough about quantum physics to have a good working theory yet... to say the universe is a conscious entity is a bit premature... Maybe they want to write a book about it 
|
|
|
|
|
