<p>lol thank you MM</p>
<p>Wow this thread is back?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was making a distinction between the colloquial definition and the religious definition and the use of blurring the line between them in order to compare resulting nonexistent similarities between science and religion. </p>
<p>Yes theories have been proven incorrect in the past, and many more will be proven incorrect in the future. But given contemporary knowledge, the majority of the public assumes that the scientific community has done everything they can currently do to test the hypotheses and that they (the public) can thus no more expound upon the subject. So for now until a new theory improves the old one, they will accept the current census.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was only addressing the tactic of describing science in terms of faith-based religion, not how one affects the other. I don’t really have any stake in these arguments, I was only pointing out that describing science in such a way is not that simple or straightforward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the math is right and all the math we need to know about the system we are studying has been accounted for, then we need to look for why the math did not yield our expected observations. I think you mean that the hypothesis would be wrong. The conclusions can change for or against the hypothesis depending on the experiment. But this is off-topic.</p>
<p>I still think these debates will never yield any agreeable outcome, and so I only join in to comment on certain technical aspects of an argument. I’m neither for or against religion. I’m for science and how it’s perceived though, so I’ll comment whenever something bugs me.</p>
<p>
I was refering to faith-based epistemology, that is all. Could you please list your own personal definitions distinguishing colloquial faith from religious faith?</p>
<p>
This does nothing to discount my assertion of the necessarily faith-based epistemology of the general public in regards to scientific “facts”. Also, one criticism against religion is that it encourages the public to expound upon scientific knowledge in order to suit their own agendas.</p>
<p>
I have been pointing out to people on this thread that (the philosophy of) science is not as simple or as straightforward as they seem to think it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, essentially I meant that the conclusion of the hypothesis is wrong.</p>
<p>^^ The things we call “science” and the things we call “religion” are both sets of ideas believed to be true my groups of people. They may or may not be justified, and they may or may not be true is reality. There can be good science and bad science, just like there can be good religion and bad religion.</p>
<p>
QFT.
10char</p>
<p>I’m Roman Catholic. I’d say religion > evolution. God created all. </p>
<p>Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. It’s only when some new scientific theory tries to undermine religious doctrine that I reject it. </p>
<p>Otherwise, science is fundamental to progress. It explains how and why things work, and improves the quality of our lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As long as you don’t pretend to reject it on a scientific basis.</p>
<p>[Carl</a> Sagan: A universe not made for us. [VIDEO]](<a href=“http://www.wimp.com/carlsagan/]Carl”>http://www.wimp.com/carlsagan/) </p>
<p>Highly recommend theists and atheists watch the video above. It might open a few minds. </p>
<p>
What an insightful… wait scratch that - this is a load of ****. It’s wonderful how such statements can be said about almost anything and sound just as ridiculous!</p>
<p>
Right, because you’ve lived long enough to see the outcomes of multiple variations? Or you have evidence to suggest otherwise? </p>
<p>
That’s extremely generous on the per-organism scale. But the multiplier here is much larger - millions of generations X several offspring per generation X thousands of existing organisms. But heck, we’re just chasing made up numbers here and unscientific imagination. So if you have a million generations, 2 offspring per couple (stable population), and 50,000 couples (small population) your grand multiplier is: 100,000 X 1,000,000,000 = 100,000,000,000. So yea, roll a million-sided die a hundred billion times and then check your math ok?</p>
<p>I haven’t even included the hundred billion stars in several hundred billion galaxies that could’ve led to what you call an “impossible outcome”.</p>
<p>
[One-Eyed</a> Child](<a href=“http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/multimedia/2006/08/oneeyed_child]One-Eyed”>One-Eyed Child | WIRED)
You’d be surprised. </p>
<p>
Are you trying to suggest that religious people are more open minded? Because that’s quite a load of poop. In fact, the nicest thing about atheism aren’t the explanations it provides, but rather the lack of a need for one. Atheists only choose to accept the ones that make sense - the ones that don’t, we can heartily reject even if it leaves a gaping hole in our explanation of the universe. For example, life creation (not evolution) is not well understood in science. Neither is universe creation (Big Bang describes moments POST-creation). So sure - one could make up a God to fill the void, or just leave it as a void. </p>
<p>
Well actually what they told you is that some all-powerful invisible man in the sky twiddled his magic wand and said “POOF Let there be light” and voila it’s all there! </p>
<p>Oh, and I’ve chosen to ignore everything above that, because frankly it’s another load of worthless ****. </p>
<p>
A ridiculous amount of mutations over a ridiculous amount of time. </p>
<p>
Apparently your mind is by default, boggled.</p>
<p>Religion sucks. Science rocks. The end. Bye. This thread was done a long ass time ago. Who cares, really? People have their own beliefs.</p>
<p>New plan…this argument is completely lopsided. We have one person lobbying for religion whilst everyone else goes for science.</p>
<p>Science - 1
Religion - 0
Chalk it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa there! When a mutation first occurs, there is exactly one individual with that mutation. That individual has to beat those odds all by itself, or there won’t be any more individuals with that mutation.</p>
<p>And you don’t have millions of generations to work with. Even the evolutionary timeframe gives you only about 150 million years from the first marsupial mammals to Socrates. You have to fit vast numbers of mutations into that time, not just one.</p>
<p>^^ I suggest a recount ILB… there are people from all over the spectrum here, from Catholic to Muslim to Agnostic to hard core Atheist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…even if this were completely true, what relevance does it have to anything?</p>
<p>Gotta love the random people interjecting with useless assertations, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much time do you think each mutation would take? Even in so simple a creature as a spider you have a vast number of instincts and structures, each of which must have been fine tuned through many random mutations to reach the amazingly well “adapted” state it is in today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your choice, but don’t act like you’re being open minded or logical by doing so.</p>
<p>
What’s your point? I already know that mutations are rare, and that surviving beneficial mutations are even more rare than that. How rare? Frankly, neither of us have done the math. So I obliged to your fake numbers and imaginary figures and took them out for a spin. Do you have a figure that overcomes the multiplier of a hundred billion in the previous post? Do you have scientific backing for this figure? Or at least rough calculation?</p>
<p>
You really are just an embarrassment to argue with. Now I see why thequestionmark and other atheists left this thread. </p>
<p>Seriously, do your math. Even if each generation was 100 years (most mammals are only a couple of years) you would still have over 1 million generation. 150,000,000 / 100 = 1,500,000. At a more reasonable 10 year generation, 150,000,000/ 10 = 15,000,000 generations.</p>
<p>Facepalm.</p>
<p>
Sorry, but a spider spinning it’s web, no matter how dramatic you make it, is not going to convince anyone that evolution is false.</p>
<p>
Well let me check, since you don’t know any science and don’t know how to use google. </p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_spiders[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_spiders</a></p>
<p>By those standards, at least 400,000 years after they were officially recognized as spiders. And the several billion years before that count too as well. Oh and get your facts straight - fine tuning doesn’t come from mutations, it comes from natural selection.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be foolish to associate open-mindedness with a particular worldview. Close-minded people can be either religious or atheist, and in either case you can bet their views will be poorly grounded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, you missed a step.</p>
<p>15,000,000 generations / number of mutations between proto mammal and Homo Sapiens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ok, I didn’t expect it to. I just felt like taking a break from the endless debate and showing, rather dramatically, just how many features even a small creature posesses.</p>