Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[_random_]

random
The assumption that I'm bad on biology (or am from ALBANIA?!?), shows nothing beyond the lack of actual proofs for evolution.
The entire PRO-evo talk is basically "bones are trusted sources to make up our theories, regardless of how technically unscientific they be".
Meaning, they could as well say, that this proves we're descendants of aliens, and with enough scientists to catch on, this would become the official theory sooner or later.
The lack of ships would be attributed to having a teleport, or sudden leaving of the "main group" or whatever.
What I mean, is that we can't KNOW, we can only GUESS.
So why prefer one guess over another?

See, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Your English is pretty lackluster by your own admission, and it might be helpful to speak to somebody who understands evolutionary science and shares a native language.

 

[civ2]

EM
About Sinai:

Verse 1: Moshe called all of Yisroel and said to them, "Hear, Yisroel, the statutes and the laws that I am relating in your presence today, for you are to study them and to be careful to fulfill them.
Verse 2: Ad-noy, our G-d, made a covenant with us at Choreiv.
Verse 3: Not [only] with our fathers did Ad-noy make this covenant, but with us, we who are here today, all of us alive.
Verse 4: Face to face Ad-noy spoke with you at the mountain from within the fire.

3--4:
...
did Ad-noy make this covenant etc., but with us, etc., face to face.
R' Berachia said, "This is what Moshe said [implied], Do not say that I am misleading you about something that is not a matter of fact such as an agent does acting as a middleman between the buyer and seller; for in this case, the seller himself is speaking to you.

Quote openly states: Moses spoke to the entire nation, stating a fact from their experience.
Now, gather at least TEN Jews, and try convincing them something of a similar importance!!!
I'd like to see that.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Making great progress, aren't we?

Yeah, I get the impression that civ2 is simply choosing to ignore the finer points brought forth in this thread. It's rather disheartening.

 

[Ahovking]

Example 1.

Suppose you believe the Bible is 100-percent literal, no rhetorical flourishes, et cetera.
Now 1 Kings 7:23,26 implies quite plainly that pi is exactly 3.

Mathematically, pi is 3.14159....

Either you have to give up super-literal interpretation, or all of mathematics. Can't have both.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Don't forget that those measurements were using the human body, with a cubit being the length of the forearm from the top of the middle finger to the elbow and the handbreath was the width of the hand spread out, so they are all not precise measurements anyway. Be from that link they did get pi rather close.

Example 2.
Genesis 1 is a creation story in which God creates the world and all in it in six days. Combine that with the genealogies in Genesis, and you get the result that the universe is no more than 15,000 years old.

Science(TM) measures the age of the universe at 13.7bn years.

Either you have to give up super-literal translation, or most of modern astronomy. Can't have both.



tl;dr any time a religious text makes a factual claim, and the claim is demonstrably wrong, you have a potential tension between "religion" and "science".

Well no one was able to observe that happening. http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Apes didn't turn into humans. Humans are apes, who share a common ancestry with all modern primates.

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring. There are plenty of species that do provide hybrids, since they are related, such as the [wiki]mule[/wiki], [wiki]tiglon[/wiki] and [wiki]wholphin[/wiki]. We have not seen a hybrid human-ape, since we are not related.

 

[Arakhor]

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring. There are plenty of species that do provide hybrids, since they are related, such as the [wiki]mule[/wiki], [wiki]tiglon[/wiki] and [wiki]wholphin[/wiki]. We have not seen a hybrid human-ape, since we are not related.

You say that as if clinical trials have proven that great apes and humans are not interfertile.

 

[_random_]

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring.

Defend this statement.

 

[History_Buff]

buff
Aha, as if you can truly TEST something that no one is ever able to reproduce or witness.
WHO is using oxymorons NOW???

1) I never said you were using oxymorons. I said you had an incredibly poor grasp on scientific principles, which everyone here can attest to (personal proof?).

2) Lets consider the most obvious refutation of the idiocy you've been spewing here, radiometric dating of the Earth.

Now, we know that all radioactive substances decay at specific (to each element), constant, exponential rate. This is what the term half-life is all about. It even has practical applications! Nuclear science as we know it wouldn't be possible without this knowledge. This includes everything from nuclear reactors, to surgical dyes, to gun sights. It's so straightforward they teach it in highschool.

Knowing this, it's possible to look at the composition of rocks and make a very good estimation of how long those rocks have existed, and thus a minimum age of the Earth. People have been doing it since 1905. Based on those experiments, we knew that the Earth was at least a billion years old. As we did more work with the technique, we found new combinations, and were allowed to run multiple tests. Turns out they all agree well that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

Now, you might foolishly scoff, and reply as you have oh so many times that "NOBODY COULD EVER HAVE BEEN THERE SO HOW CAN WE BE SURE THE METHOD WORKS!?!?!?!?!?!" in that poorly formatted way of yours. But then you'd look like an idiot, since we can test it. I'll explain how.

We can use radio-carbon dating to establish how old dead things are. They tend to agree very well with the historical record. We can also use optical dating to date things that are even more recent than that, where the record is even more established. We're talking about things that happened less than 2000 years ago. There's not a lot of disagreement about how things went down. And if that still isn't good enough, given the occasional spottiness of the historical record. In that case you have 36CL dating. Chlorine-36 is exceedingly rare; there's only one known natural reaction that produces it, and if someone from 1940 picked up a rock, they'd be lucky to find any. But then something changed: airborne nuclear testing. The radiation was able to produce vast amounts of Chlorine-36, which we can use to reliably date very recent events, where the historical record is rock solid.

So in the face of a tested method, proven principles, and well controlled and independently replicated experimentation, we can conclude very comfortably that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years. And then it just so happens that every other piece of evidence we have agrees with that conclusion.

Though I'm sure none of that matters to such a devout individual as yourself. I'm sure you have some divine knowledge to explain why thousands of people who have come before you were wrong, and you're some modern day prophet, come to enlighten us all as to the magnitude of our buffoonery.

 

[Leoreth]

Making great progress, aren't we?

It's like playing OT on Deity

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

Compared to the assumption of a creator entity and all the required fudging to justify that, these assumptions strike me as rather miniscule.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

You cite the evidence for the inflaton field as evidence against it

Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Oh, yeah, Big Astrophysics, forgot about that.

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring.

This claim has no biological basis.

Do you really think you can disprove Evolution as easy as that?

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring. There are plenty of species that do provide hybrids, since they are related, such as the [wiki]mule[/wiki], [wiki]tiglon[/wiki] and [wiki]wholphin[/wiki]. We have not seen a hybrid human-ape, since we are not related.

If that's all that's needed for hybrids, then why won't my water buffalo breed with my cattle? Define related here. Going by your examples, they must share a family. But by your sentence on the relation of humans with other apes, the elk and deer are not related. The term related is subjective. Avoid using opinions as facts.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring. There are plenty of species that do provide hybrids, since they are related, such as the [wiki]mule[/wiki], [wiki]tiglon[/wiki] and [wiki]wholphin[/wiki]. We have not seen a hybrid human-ape, since we are not related.

Your logic looks to me to be something like this:

1. Event X hasn't happened.
2. Therefore, Event X cannot happen.
3. Therefore, Theory Y which may or may not say that Event X can happen is false.

I'm sure you can see the hole from step 1 to step 2, but even I can't imagine how you got from step 2 to 3.

 

[Andvare]

If we are related we should be able to mate with and provide hybrid offspring. There are plenty of species that do provide hybrids, since they are related, such as the [wiki]mule[/wiki], [wiki]tiglon[/wiki] and [wiki]wholphin[/wiki]. We have not seen a hybrid human-ape, since we are not related.

First, they have the same Genus, so in classical biology, they are quite a bit more related than humans are to our closest relative, the chimpanzee.
Read up on that on the wiki, which you obviously know how to use. (EDIT: They are also closer related in bio-chemistry)

Second, have you heard of any human-ape offspring experiment? Because I sure haven't. Without such experiment, how would you prove your claim?

Third, being able to not produce offspring, is not a proof for lack of relations. Otherwise, why can't we mate an elephant with a squirrel, and get an elephant that climb trees*? They are both mammals?


There was something else I wanted to say, but I can't remember it. Being in this thread have lowered my IQ considerably. I have to get out while I still know how to do additions, because I feel my multiplication skills might be slipping.


*Yes, I know that is not how genes work, but I'm trying to dumb this way down, so he can understand it. And, yes, I know I kinda broke my second point, but, again, trying to explain something to a moron, you risk becoming one yourself.

 

[History_Buff]

Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Are you nuts? If someone could disprove any of the big scientific theories (e.g. relativity, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, Darwinian evolution), they would rapidly become the richest and most famous scientist in the world. Probably overnight, since the media would jump all over it.

 

[Andvare]

Are you nuts? If someone could disprove any of the big scientific theories (e.g. relativity, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, Darwinian evolution), they would rapidly become the richest and most famous scientist in the world. Probably overnight, since the media would jump all over it.

Nono, the scientific community disproves of anything that goes against their world view.
Which is why we use the theory of the Aether still. And also why some random Jewish guy from Ulm in Germany did not get anywhere with his weird theories of something that was relative.


Yup, there goes my ability to multiply.

 

[civ2]

Now, we know that all radioactive substances decay at specific (to each element), constant, exponential rate. This is what the term half-life is all about. It even has practical applications! Nuclear science as we know it wouldn't be possible without this knowledge. This includes everything from nuclear reactors, to surgical dyes, to gun sights. It's so straightforward they teach it in highschool.

This assumes that there were no changes in the Earth's parameters ever since.
We can't KNOW it, but only ASSUME.
Use proper names for different things.

Knowing this, it's possible to look at the composition of rocks and make a very good estimation of how long those rocks have existed, and thus a minimum age of the Earth. People have been doing it since 1905. Based on those experiments, we knew that the Earth was at least a billion years old. As we did more work with the technique, we found new combinations, and were allowed to run multiple tests. Turns out they all agree well that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

They all ran the same mathematical program.
Of course they got the same results.
But who said that the PROGRAM is not an error?

Now, you might foolishly scoff, and reply as you have oh so many times that "NOBODY COULD EVER HAVE BEEN THERE SO HOW CAN WE BE SURE THE METHOD WORKS!?!?!?!?!?!" in that poorly formatted way of yours. But then you'd look like an idiot, since we can test it. I'll explain how.

OK, let's see.

We can use radio-carbon dating to establish how old dead things are. They tend to agree very well with the historical record. We can also use optical dating to date things that are even more recent than that, where the record is even more established. We're talking about things that happened less than 2000 years ago. There's not a lot of disagreement about how things went down. And if that still isn't good enough, given the occasional spottiness of the historical record. In that case you have 36CL dating. Chlorine-36 is exceedingly rare; there's only one known natural reaction that produces it, and if someone from 1940 picked up a rock, they'd be lucky to find any. But then something changed: airborne nuclear testing. The radiation was able to produce vast amounts of Chlorine-36, which we can use to reliably date very recent events, where the historical record is rock solid.

Nah, nothing new.
You still assume, that AT NO POINT IN THE PAST, there could NOT be an event that changed something drastically.
And we can't even know, when it happened.
So, we can't even say, which results are depending on this, and which are not, thus correct.

So in the face of a tested method, proven principles, and well controlled and independently replicated experimentation, we can conclude very comfortably that the Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years. And then it just so happens that every other piece of evidence we have agrees with that conclusion.

I see nothing TESTED.
I already explained, WHY.
I can write a fancy program, that will mathematically prove to you, that 2+2=6.
I just need to program it, so that 2=3, as a part of the program itself.
Can you test the results? Sure.
Are they really correct? Very funny.

Though I'm sure none of that matters to such a devout individual as yourself. I'm sure you have some divine knowledge to explain why thousands of people who have come before you were wrong, and you're some modern day prophet, come to enlighten us all as to the magnitude of our buffoonery.

Not wrong - unproven.
Again, using the same wrongly programmed mathematical program will result in the same results countless times.
Yet, the error is in the programming assumptions, not in the testers.
You need to be sure to check the program for wrong assumptions, not JUST the output.
And this exactly means - personal experience of events.
But I'm sure, this example won't change anything - cause "I'm just a stupid fanatic, that knows nothing about science", suuure.

 

[civ2]

As of high taxa hybrids - this actually is a very good support for my idea, that there weren't SO many animals on the Ark.
(And they rapidly evolved/diversified AFTER being released back into the empty ecosystem.)
Meaning, the term "species" is VERY vague and couldn't be used to COUNT those animals, even remotely.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

"I'm just a stupid fanatic, that knows nothing about science", suuure.

Now obviously I can't scientifically prove this , it's more of a belief .

(Civ2 I don't for a second thing this about you , it was just too easily set up for a joke I couldn't resist)

 

[_random_]

(And they rapidly evolved/diversified AFTER being released back into the empty ecosystem.)

By every chronology of the Old Testament I've seen, this wouldn't leave nearly enough time for all the evolution that'd have to happen. And you still wouldn't have enough room.

 

[civ2]

random
ASSUMING, aren't we again?
How do you know?
We have a documented testimony (but "unscientific", whatever that even means regarding reality) vs unprovable assumption (but "scientific", just cause you want it to be called such, though it gives it no more reality-validity).
At the least, we can't dismiss either, until we KNOW.

 

[_random_]

We can observe genetic changes in populations over time and reasonably accurately extrapolate how evolution might take place based on that. It couldn't conceivably take place in the few centuries such an interpretation of the Bible would mandate.

 

[civ2]

random
That is, you totally don't take the EMPTY land ecosystem into account.
It was basically a situation, when any newly born animal, whatever its genes, was getting a wide range of places to adapt to.
So, almost any mutation would still survive, regardless of how fit it was to actually compete.
It's like playing Civ alone, on a Giant map.
Except your every city has unique genetics, and they don't even compete.
We could never TEST such a situation, but we can't also dismiss a possibility of such.