"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 61869 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

Macclesfield, UK

#9730 Jun 26, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes... The first energy/matter... Energy from nothing (it was just there)... Matter somehow reproducing matter (forget that it's not scientifically possible)..... And we get the big bang theory!!! Comes on TBS every night...
Bub, your alternative is Goddidit with magic. You don't give a flying fig about what's scientifically possible anyway.

But by all means carry on demonstrating that creo's are hypocrites.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#9731 Jun 26, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't really given any specific answer. Just tell me, which one is more logical in your view:
1. at some point absolutely nothing existed
or
2. something has always existed
Which one's your favorite?
It's not logical to pick based on my personal preference in the first place.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#9732 Jun 26, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Hasn't happened yet. If you think it has then by all means do explain in detail.
Black Knight syndrome.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#9733 Jun 26, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes... The first energy/matter... Energy from nothing (it was just there)... Matter somehow reproducing matter (forget that it's not scientifically possible)..... And we get the big bang theory!!! Comes on TBS every night...
That is not what is said or done. But after all is said and done , you will still be a few french fries short of a happy meal.

A infinite infinitesimal containing everything expanded annihilated
the antimatter and continued , and yes is.......to be continued same bat time ...same bat channel. SO...Don't Touch That Dial boy wonder.
defender

London, KY

#9734 Jun 26, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Bub, your alternative is Goddidit with magic. You don't give a flying fig about what's scientifically possible anyway.

But by all means carry on demonstrating that creo's are hypocrites.
You also don't care what's scientifically possible... If you did then you would not turn a blind eye to the facts.... God did it with magic?... Anyway you slice the pie it took some kind of magic or unexplainable event for this universe to exist... Even more magic for life to arise ... Science does not support your claim... Never has...
defender

London, KY

#9735 Jun 26, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>That is not what is said or done. But after all is said and done , you will still be a few french fries short of a happy meal.

A infinite infinitesimal containing everything expanded annihilated
the antimatter and continued , and yes is.......to be continued same bat time ...same bat channel. SO...Don't Touch That Dial boy wonder.
Infinite infinitesimal??.... Lol... Too much Star Wars bud... And you call others foolish?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9736 Jun 26, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinite infinitesimal??.... Lol... Too much Star Wars bud... And you call others foolish?
I recognize your foul stench, by your ISP.

Classic case of Jesus Love™ on display.

It is a pity the rest of the world calls what you spew forth, "hate".

Isn't it?

“Lay off my space shoes.”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9737 Jun 26, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>You also don't care what's scientifically possible... If you did then you would not turn a blind eye to the facts.... God did it with magic?... Anyway you slice the pie it took some kind of magic or unexplainable event for this universe to exist... Even more magic for life to arise ... Science does not support your claim... Never has...
It took magic for our universe to exist? Hardly.. The big bang happened, that we know.. What happened before the big bang? We are still trying to figure out.. There are several theories astrophysicists are currently working on (string theory, m theory, multiverses etc.) They don't have it all figured out yet, and we may never figure it all out. One thing I'm certain is god had no part in the creation of our universe. There is not a single shred of evidence to support creationism and there never will be.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#9738 Jun 26, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinite infinitesimal??.... Lol... Too much Star Wars bud... And you call others foolish?
Singularities have need of such contradictory terms to explain them.

Go ahead and feel free to look up the astrophysics definition of singularity. But we expect you will not understand the implications of it. But this is exactly what everything came from.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9739 Jun 27, 2012
MikeF wrote:
#1. I'll say anything I damn well please.
Yes, that is what stubborn children do. In their mind they're always correct.
MikeF wrote:
#2. Not as childish as your centrifugal force 'hypothesis'.
Huh? It's a falsifiable hypothesis dealing with mathematics that children do not understand. Why do you think it is childish?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9740 Jun 27, 2012
Mar1980 wrote:
The big bang happened, that we know..
That is false. What is known is that the universe is observed to expand in an accelerating fashion. It is an hypothesis that physical matter suddenly appeared in a "big bang". It seems to me that this hypothesis is of religious origin. The scientific conservation laws indicate that energy and physical matter have no beginning. It would be quite silly to think that the universe was "created" or popped into existence out of nothing without any cause.
Mar1980 wrote:
What happened before the big bang? We are still trying to figure out.. There are several theories astrophysicists are currently working on (string theory, m theory, multiverses etc.) They don't have it all figured out yet, and we may never figure it all out. One thing I'm certain is god had no part in the creation of our universe. There is not a single shred of evidence to support creationism and there never will be.
Explaining something that can not be observed or measured is just pure speculation.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9741 Jun 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You really felt you needed to post this
And it's soooooo far off track.
You made the claim that monkeys are all of a kind and can interbreed.

I refuted it using facts.

Religious zealots like you hate facts.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9742 Jun 27, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You made the claim that monkeys are all of a kind and can interbreed.
I refuted it using facts.
Religious zealots like you hate facts.
So do agnostics like yourself.

Real and falsifiable? No facts there to speak of...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9743 Jun 27, 2012
unfalsifiable*

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9744 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That is false. What is known is that the universe is observed to expand in an accelerating fashion. It is an hypothesis that physical matter suddenly appeared in a "big bang". It seems to me that this hypothesis is of religious origin. The scientific conservation laws indicate that energy and physical matter have no beginning. It would be quite silly to think that the universe was "created" or popped into existence out of nothing without any cause.
<quoted text>
Explaining something that can not be observed or measured is just pure speculation.
Its not a religious hypothesis if the evidence leads us there, no matter how uncomfortable you might be with the conclusion. Its simply a scientific hypothesis that will be supported or falsified by the data.

In any case, you misstate the law of conservation. Of course energy and matter can have beginning, if the total energy balance does not change. One hypothesis is that gravity is the balancing "negative energy". You will note that the gravitational potential energy between two objects reaches a MAXIMUM of ZERO at infinite distance. Give that some thought.
LoL

Los Angeles, CA

#9745 Jun 27, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You made the claim that monkeys are all of a kind and can interbreed.
I refuted it using facts.
Religious zealots like you hate facts.
Hay.
Hay THIM T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.S. DUN CAWT MUH ATMUSFEAR ON FIRE!

Even the RELIGIOUS folks didn't buy that but you athiests are such ill educated trash, YOU BAWT IT LIKE YEW BAWT THIM THAIR

MAGICAL MATHuH MATICKS!

Atheists are such stupid hicks as a demographic. The amount of posturing isn't readily believable if you haven't seen them all run off a cliff to give each other AIDS

just
because
religious
people,
SAID 'DON'T DO IT.'
Pfft.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#9746 Jun 27, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Its not a religious hypothesis if the evidence leads us there, no matter how uncomfortable you might be with the conclusion. Its simply a scientific hypothesis that will be supported or falsified by the data.
And what evidence do you think supports a "big bang" over matter and energy having always existed?
Chimney1 wrote:
In any case, you misstate the law of conservation. Of course energy and matter can have beginning, if the total energy balance does not change. One hypothesis is that gravity is the balancing "negative energy". You will note that the gravitational potential energy between two objects reaches a MAXIMUM of ZERO at infinite distance. Give that some thought.
If you have a total energy balance of something, you need energy separate from that balance to disrupt that balance. So if you believe that at first there has been nothing and no positive and no negative energy, what disrupted that balance? If there is nothing, then nothing will disrupt that nothingness.

Logically the current evidence forces to the conclusion that matter and energy can not have appeared from nothingness. They may have transformed from something else.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9747 Jun 27, 2012
Two different situations where discussed when HB posited his question to Aura mythra.
http://roxanne.roxanne.org/epr/index.html#tab...
Aspects experiment with two photons. Leading to the EPR paradox and Bell's solution.

The other was entanglement, as in two parts of one photon. pg 473 #9677 and last posts on the former page give a short summation.

--
None can observe nor set up a stable measurement system to know what happened in the first 0.01s (quagma-state) of the universe for it is too hot.

Most i theoretical physics is speculation to resolve speculation, but obviously some things can be put to the test. And usually the math will strive to get to observable and testable positions.
( a ket or Hermitian operator)

Apart from the BBT such things as dark matter, dark energy, strings a.s.o. are solutions for dissatisfaction with the BBT.

I like geons. ;)

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9748 Jun 27, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
And what evidence do you think supports a "big bang" over matter and energy having always existed?
<quoted text>
If you have a total energy balance of something, you need energy separate from that balance to disrupt that balance. So if you believe that at first there has been nothing and no positive and no negative energy, what disrupted that balance? If there is nothing, then nothing will disrupt that nothingness.
Logically the current evidence forces to the conclusion that matter and energy can not have appeared from nothingness. They may have transformed from something else.
Absolute vacuum is an ideal environment for strings. Imperative in fact.

But how would you measure or observe them, as polymath allready pointed out!

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9749 Jun 27, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not a religious hypothesis if the evidence leads us there, no matter how uncomfortable you might be with the conclusion. Its simply a scientific hypothesis that will be supported or falsified by the data.
In any case, you misstate the law of conservation. Of course energy and matter can have beginning, if the total energy balance does not change. One hypothesis is that gravity is the balancing "negative energy". You will note that the gravitational potential energy between two objects reaches a MAXIMUM of ZERO at infinite distance. Give that some thought.
It's only maths but:
Decoherence shows how a macroscopic system interacting with a lot of microscopic systems (e.g. collisions with air molecules or photons) moves from being in a pure quantum state—which in general will be a coherent superposition (see Schrödinger's cat)—to being in an incoherent mixture of these states. The weighting of each outcome in the mixture in case of measurement is exactly that which gives the probabilities of the different results of such a measurement.

end quote.
So fruitless action (superposition is just a mathemathical term) but if you would translate this to the physical world you would have a lot of waves in undeterminded state that are not detectable untill they collide.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to sync Outlook with iPhone 7? Wed mikewilliams0977 1
News Sea ice cover at both poles at lowest point of ... Wed Baby It s Cold Ou... 12
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) Wed positronium 13,626
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Tue Stephanie Shipley 715
Recover Deleted text Messages from iPhone with ... (Mar '14) Mar 26 Natalie_33 25
News Early snow throwers made in Martinsburg Mar 25 Kim 1
News Vigil held for boy mauled by Pitbull in Murray ... Mar 25 Kill Pitt Bulls 1
More from around the web