"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 78757 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2235 Apr 18, 2012
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
<quoted text>
Who do you think you are speaking to?!!
Illiterate fundies.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2236 Apr 18, 2012
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
<quoted text>
I have resons to believe that your shit is just as made up:
"Epistemology ... meaning "knowledge, science",... "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (LIMITATIONS) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analysing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Another perennial concern of the field is the possibility that there is very little or no knowledge at all—scepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Epistemology]
Science doesn't give a fig what philosophy has to say. Philosophy is mere mental mastrubation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#2237 Apr 18, 2012
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Grounds of validity of scientific reasoning:
...
Induction:
...Explaining why induction commonly works has been somewhat problematic... it is at least possible that an observation will be made tomorrow that shows an occasion in which an action is not accompanied by a reaction; THE SAME IS TRUE OF ANY SCIENTIFIC LAW...
The problem of induction is one of considerable debate and importance in the philosophy of science: is induction indeed justified, and if so, how?..."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Philosophy_of_science]
So keep repeating your experiments ans scientific methods... you just might convince yourself that the crap you BELIEVE in is a real phenomena.
Belief is not necessary. Science is perfectly fine with the possibility that an expected reaction that happens today may not happen tomorrow. That is after all what fundies claim happened in the past cuz how do we know where we THERE?!?

Been waiting for thousands of years for you fundies to come up with a better alternative to the scientific method using your approach.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2238 Apr 18, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't give a fig what philosophy has to say. Philosophy is mere mental mastrubation.
Agreed. Science just keeps slogging along in spite of philosophical nit-picking.
defender

United States

#2239 Apr 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. This is NOT what the Big Bang theory says. It says that the universe is expanding and was once much hotter and denser so that nuclear reactions happened. That is well established. The Big bang theory says *nothing* about what initiated the expansion (not an explosion, by the way). It says *nothing* about what, if anything, happened before the expansion started.

Now, there *are* conjectures about such things, but no evidence to test between these conjectures. So at this point, we do not know what, if anything caused the expansion or if anything existed before it.

[QUOTE] Life magically forming in ancient clay pits"

I know of no abiogenesis hypothesis relating to 'clay pits'. Life formed from the chemicals that existed at the time and from the natural laws of chemistry and physics. We know a good number of the steps in this process, but not all of them. Religion, on the other hand, proposes a 'magical' poofing of life into existence by a supernatural force.

[QUOTE] and millions of years of fish evolving into man... You believe you ancestors are fish..."

Yes, actually. VERY distant ancestors, to be sure.

[QUOTE] Mathematically impossible chances of amino acids forming into proteins..."

Only when computed using assumptions that are known to be false. In particular, the various steps are not independent in the sense of probability/.

[QUOTE] Coming from a cosmic explosion consisting of microscopic matter that you cannot explain whence it came from. That takes some great faith!!! "

Npo, it takes looking at the evidence and attempting to understand it. Evolution (changes of species over time) happened. the Big Bang (a how dense state of the universe about 13.7 billion years ago) happened. Your incredulity pales in the face of the actual evidence.
Your words " We know a good many steps in the process but not all of them" proof yet again of the Stanley Miller lie in every science text book... Truth Is every possible combination has been tested and retested time and time again... And failed... Big bang? Read what you have just posted... You have no clue how the universe came to be... Sorry it just don't hold water...
defender

United States

#2240 Apr 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Why does that invalidate the claim it was inspired by god?


Remember that Christianity spread via the sword once it got power in the Roman empire.

[QUOTE] And again with the Paul made it all up thing... Tell me then what was his motivation ?"

Paul was a Roman jew. I think he took his epileptic seizure seriously.
Lol... Could it be possible for one as smart as you to know so little about Christianity?
defender

United States

#2241 Apr 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, nobody claims it happened by 'random chance'. It happened through the laws of physics and chemistry, which are far from being random.

Second, chemical reactions *do* create complex cells *today*. ALL life is chemistry. In spite of many attempts to find a 'life force', all that has been found is chemical reactions. Furthermore, those chemical reactions explain everything that actually happens in life.

The question in abiogenesis is how the various chemicals self-organized, not whether life is made from chemicals.
Umm... Wait a sec... You admitted science could not prove this theory in you're other post... So which is it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2242 Apr 18, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words " We know a good many steps in the process but not all of them" proof yet again of the Stanley Miller lie in every science text book.
OK, smart guy, WHY was Miller a lie?
defender wrote:
Truth Is every possible combination has been tested and retested time and time again... And failed...
Nope. Wrong. Every possible combination has not been tested.
defender wrote:
Big bang? Read what you have just posted... You have no clue how the universe came to be... Sorry it just don't hold water...
Meanwhile, science will continue to ignore your ignorance and continue to make progress.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#2243 Apr 18, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Lyrids most likely.
http://www.astronomy.com/~/link.aspx...
That makes sense. It was slow but lots faster than a Low Earth Orbit satellite. Thanx.
defender

United States

#2244 Apr 18, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>OK, smart guy, WHY was Miller a lie?

defender wrote, "Truth Is every possible combination has been tested and retested time and time again... And failed..."

Nope. Wrong. Every possible combination has not been tested.

defender wrote, "Big bang? Read what you have just posted... You have no clue how the universe came to be... Sorry it just don't hold water..."

Meanwhile, science will continue to ignore your ignorance and continue to make progress.
Ask Polymath !!! He just said the same thing... Learn how to read!!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2245 Apr 18, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask Polymath !!! He just said the same thing... Learn how to read!!!
I asked *you*. Can you answer or are going to run away like a little wuss?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2247 Apr 18, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... Wait a sec... You admitted science could not prove this theory in you're other post... So which is it?
Different questions. Science does not know the detail process by which the first cells came into being, although we have many steps in the process.

But life *today* is made from chemical reactions. YOUR life is a very complex collection of chemical reactions. So the question of life coming from chemical reactions is not an issue. How the process started is at issue.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2248 Apr 18, 2012
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE KNOWLEDGE FROM WISDOM!
I've known a number of very knowledgeable people in my life that exhibited no sign of wisdom.
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
SO WHAT CAME FIRST; THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?
The egg.
defender

United States

#2250 Apr 18, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>I asked *you*. Can you answer or are going to run away like a little wuss?
Did Miller use the correct gases in his experiment? If you say yes your a lier and of you say no then I'm right...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2251 Apr 18, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words " We know a good many steps in the process but not all of them" proof yet again of the Stanley Miller lie in every science text book...
I cannot speak for every textbook, but the basic Miller experiment was correct and informative.
Truth Is every possible combination has been tested and retested time and time again... And failed... Big bang? Read what you have just posted... You have no clue how the universe came to be... Sorry it just don't hold water...
We *do* have a number of conjectures about how the universe came to be, but not enough evidence to distinguish between the possibilities. It would help immensely if we had a tested quantum theory of gravity. The conjectures are testable, but we have not done the experiments to actually test them because of funding issues.

Among the possibilities:
1) Time started with the expansion, so talking about 'before the Big Bang' is simply meaningless. Causality requires time, so causality is also meaningless. This is the picture given by general relativity, but since it doesn't include quantum phenomena, it is less likely in many ways than the others.

2) There was a previous, contracting universe before ours that 'bounced' to produce the current expansion. In this case, the previous universe existed infinitely into the past. This is the picture from loop quantum gravity and some versions of string theory.

3) There is a larger multi-verse from which universes 'bud off' in various ways (depending on the specifics--one is that collisions of branes do this).
This is the picture given by many versions of string theory. Time need not be a part of the larger multi-verse and causality does not obey the classical rules from Aristotle.

What we *do* know is that the current expansion phase is about 13.7 billion years old, that the universe was much hotter and denser in the past, we have a lot of evidence from the background radiation about the time when the universe was about 300,000 years old and a fair amount from when it was a few seconds to minutes old.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2254 Apr 18, 2012
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
You know its interesting:
"Scientific minded" individuals ridicule creationist ideas and religious concepts; WHEN SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY ORIGINATED WITH CREATIONIST, PHILOSOPHIC, RELIGIOUS PERSONS:
{snip}
Not quite. "Scientific minded" individuals ridicule creationist ideas and religious concepts when their claims are completely at odds with reality.
defender

United States

#2255 Apr 18, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Different questions. Science does not know the detail process by which the first cells came into being, although we have many steps in the process.

But life *today* is made from chemical reactions. YOUR life is a very complex collection of chemical reactions. So the question of life coming from chemical reactions is not an issue. How the process started is at issue.
You should run for office!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2256 Apr 18, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Miller use the correct gases in his experiment? If you say yes your a lier and of you say no then I'm right...
Correct in what sense? They used what was considered to be reasonable at the time.

Whether he used the correct gas or not, he did so honestly. So explain, once again, WHY it was a lie.

BTW, the word is 'liar', dumbass.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2257 Apr 18, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Miller use the correct gases in his experiment? If you say yes your a lier and of you say no then I'm right...
Miller uses a gas mix that appeared plausible at the time of his experiment. Whether or not that was the gas mix now assumed to have existed 3.8 billion years ago, you miss the whole point.

He demonstrated that complex amino acids and peptide chains could form from simple chemicals spontaneously. Therefore his experiment was a success.

If you want to call that a failure, its only because you demand more from the experiment than it was seeking to demonstrate. Nobody was expecting little worms to crawl out, dingbat.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#2258 Apr 18, 2012
EVOZ_CAN_KIZZ_MY_AZZ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one such person, of the type you described above.
The egg becomes a chicken, hence by virtue of the capacities of the egg. Therefore the chicken was pre-existent as a potential of the egg... you egg-head!
Eggs existed long before chickens, doofus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr marksman11 163,061
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Agents of Corruption 222,265
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Science 1,412
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web