2008-07-31, 09:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 2008-07-31, 09:28 PM by Ampleforth.)
How do you define things as broad as "science" or "religion" into two terms and then attempt to compare them to one another?
Please don't say things that are completely wrong, especially in such a sure attitude. Science has changed dramatically over thousands of years; Newtonian physics has been tested time and time again. Biology wasn't even considered a science until the 20th century, Quantum theory has caused conflict with many previous sciences (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle v Einstein Podolski Rosen Thought Experiments), the list is endless. Science changes, and whether the objective laws of physics/whatever change is still UNKNOWN. We don't even know how much randomness plays a role in the world (e.g. Chaos Theory, Thermodynamics, various thought experiments)
Have fun trying to prove entanglement and the wave/particle duality of light.
This thread appears to be more Newtonian science v Western monotheism than Science v Religion. If you're going to make a comparison between legitimacy of science and religion, it's important to really learn more about BOTH subjects, not make baseless assumptions.
PS:
Lol be careful with that argument, you don't want to sound like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Afrobean Wrote:Science doesn't change. Only our perception changes as we learn more. This is the most logical way to look at the world; if you learn something you thought before was wrong, you change your understanding of the world to be in line with how you now know it to be.
Please don't say things that are completely wrong, especially in such a sure attitude. Science has changed dramatically over thousands of years; Newtonian physics has been tested time and time again. Biology wasn't even considered a science until the 20th century, Quantum theory has caused conflict with many previous sciences (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle v Einstein Podolski Rosen Thought Experiments), the list is endless. Science changes, and whether the objective laws of physics/whatever change is still UNKNOWN. We don't even know how much randomness plays a role in the world (e.g. Chaos Theory, Thermodynamics, various thought experiments)
Brandini Wrote:Science is solid in that it can be backed up by facts, proven, and tested. Certain religion is suppose to be solid such as Christianity since their rules and fairy tales are written in an ancient book but ever since the late 1800s where Science has majorly contradicted religion, religion is now interpreted in certain ways to make their faith more convinient, and everytime something new is discovered the bible has to be reinterpret.
Have fun trying to prove entanglement and the wave/particle duality of light.
This thread appears to be more Newtonian science v Western monotheism than Science v Religion. If you're going to make a comparison between legitimacy of science and religion, it's important to really learn more about BOTH subjects, not make baseless assumptions.
PS:
Quote:The cell didn't pop out of nowhere, it formed by molecules bonding and reacting.
After a billion/few hundred million years of random reactions, the odds that life pops up is pretty high.
Lol be careful with that argument, you don't want to sound like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504