This conversation is closed.

Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?

Science contradicts religion in many ways; For example, if humans are an evolutionary progression, what would this mean for stories such as Adam and Eve.

  • thumb
    Mar 10 2014: Science contradicts the literal interpretations of religious writings. It does not contradict the deeper levels born out of spiritual experience and contemplative thinking.

    I have a 1904 Noah Webster dictionary that defines "Theology" as having two branches, natural and revealed. Natural theology is that which we can know of God through his works by way of nature and reason. Revealed theology is that which we can know of God by personal revelation (i.e. spiritual experience). The modern dictionary has reduced the definition to the study of religious dogma.

    Since the time of Galileo, science and religion have been at odds because they are in competition. It is about power and not truth, and that is more so on the religious side. Science is willing to concede if proofs can be given. Religious fundamentalism is now based on blind faith which offers no proofs other than personal conviction and pseudo-science (which isn't science but just a twisting of facts).

    The modern scientist is awed by the complexity and consistency of nature to the point that some are having spiritual experiences in the process. That it has anything to do with religion is only true if you ignore traditional churches, and compare it to Rosicrucian, Gnosis, and Eastern philosophical teachings.

    If modern churches do not learn to embrace science and modify their dogmas, they will fail. And not because there is no Higher power, but because they have lost touch with it.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: Good points Roy.

      I guess the early English dictionaries were prepared by people with Christian beliefs at a time when most people assumed the rather small known universe was the creation of the one of the Christian god concepts.

      I wonder how science and theology were defined in other cultures.

      I guess the meaning and practice of science has evolved over time.
      • thumb
        Mar 11 2014: Hello Obey,

        If the definition of theology hadn't changed, then the scientific method would have to be incorporated into religious studies.

        Science continues to evolve over time. In the past, religion was also evolving. The whole concept of God went through an evolutionary process by which old gods were replaced by new concepts that were taking it to a much deeper level. But lately, religion has stopped evolving. Its only involvement with science is in defense of its dogma, but it refuses to make any concessions.

        When I look at Eastern philosophy, Rosicrucian, and Gnostic teachings, I have no problem integrating them with the Big-Bang theory. But these teachings are absent from organized religions.

        The Catholic church defines God as a person having a personality. None of the mystics of the ancient world who were responsible for bringing such concepts into view would have conceded to that definition. I certainly don't, and many of the people who still believe in a higher power don't accept it. But many are now disassociating the word God from the concept of a higher power because of the way the word God is being defined. All the scriptural references pertaining to God are metaphors. Literal interpretations have created an image of a false deity. The false deity is being challenged. I say don't get rid of the word, get rid of the false notions associated with it.

        I don't agree that the universe is just a series of cosmic accidents. The laws, forces, processes, and structures of the universe all have order. That order is reducible to the quantum level. It controls how the universe will evolve. It has all the qualities that the mystics attributed to their view of God
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: Hi Roy, it certainly looks like some aspects of some religions have stopped evolving. At best bible worshipping evangelicals continue to develop bogus responses to ongoing scientific discoveries to protect their core dogmas. Or resort to presuppositional arguments, and refine apologetics to work around the objections.

          perhaps outside orthodox or fundamentalist groups religion may continue to evolve with individuals absorbing new science and arguments and having access to other religious and spiritual traditions. Meanwhile society moves on challenging the position that religions sit outside the law and can molest children, or that gay marriage is okay etc

          you may have picked up I'm not partial to any particular religious dogma. I'm partially aligned with you that the more specific and anthropomorphic a god concept is, the more unlikely it is.

          I'm not sure where the non personal mystic god concept you support differs from the natural universe. c
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Obey,
        The non personal mystic God concept I support is not non personal. I have had personal contact with it. While meditating on God, I felt a presence that revealed things to me that would set me on a spiritual journey. It has guided my life in so many ways.

        When I first had this experience, I was somewhat confused because it didn't correspond with what the church was teaching me about God. It wasn't apart from reality, it didn't have any sexual gender, it had no form, it didn't exist in a place, its only similarity was that it was on a higher plane of consciousness.

        It wasn't until eleven years later in a nuclear physics class that I came to understand what I had experienced. It was reductionism to the quantum world, the foundation upon which all of nature's structures, laws, forces, and processes depend. It would take science to fill in all the details.

        How does it differ from the natural universe, it doesn't other than that it uses the artistic side of the brain rather than the analytical side to make sense out of it. That is why religion is represented by metaphors, symbolism, myths, allegories, and personifications. Literal interpretations render them useless. It is when you go beyond the literal interpretation and integrate them with scientific facts that they begin to make sense.

        I have no problem integrating the quantum world with my concept of God, for to me, they are two different expressions of the same thing.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Good point, Obey - it would be useless and confusing to observe religion or sciences ignoring cultural shifts throughout history.

        I'd like to know how some tedpeople might change their minds when they "discover" that

        great Archimedes did not have any "tools" to find out that the age of the earth is mightier that just a few millennia. Probably no one was even interested in calculating the age of the earth at that time..

        We live in our postmodern age of many interesting discoveries based on complicated instruments and methods conducting our research,

        But Archimedes' Principle is still in the foundation of our postmodern sciences and technology:

        "Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."

        — Archimedes of Syracuse

        Another Great Greek, Heraclitus, has articulated the most fundamental law of nature "Flux".

        We may see how the one of the most outstanding physicists and philosophers of our time has offered the way to deal with "Flux" 2 1/2 millennia after Heraclitus -
        Werner Heisenberg, the father of the Uncertainty Principal ++

        One of the biggest problems with quantum experiments is the seemingly unavoidable tendency of humans to influence the situati­on and velocity of small particles.

        Nothing can stay still for our observations and calculations, just as Heraclitus Flux describes it.

        If we do not learn from old history we learn very little or nothing even in spite using super microscopes or telescopes etc., We often witness idiotic and naive scientific fantasies "based" on some lab evidence, these fantasies are popularized creating following crowds, but what is more scary - the industries, who rush to mass produce endless harmful gadgets and products based on chemical concoctions without any sense of what they are really doing. Our mentality has been manipulated again. This picture is as scary as religious ignorance, I think.

        Good talking to you.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: You say: "Since the time of Galileo, science and religion have been at odds because they are in competition."

      I hope that you do not REALLY mean to use the term "religion" in this contest - GALILEO was a deeply religious genius, as all great scientists of all times.

      It was the old institution of CHIRCH not religion itself, that has been fighting new ideas of all sorts.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Vera,
        By religion, I refer to the traditional churches. Spiritual people do not argue with science, they try to integrate them. Fundamentalists, however, who control the mainstream churches are in competition with the scientific community. When you speak religion, most people associate it with the mainstream churches.

        I am a Christian, but not a fundamentalist. I find myself in a minority group. I do not have the church's blessing on my views because I integrate them with science. By the same token, I constantly get rebuttals from the scientifically minded because I dare to bring religion into the subject. So I often have to distinguish between religious and spiritual.
    • Mar 12 2014: Roy, Well said
      In so far as they both seek the truth there can be no contradiction.
      Religeon comes into conflict when it tries to make humans devine, as in suggesting the authors of the bible were devinely inspired when writting. Originally the bible was the collected stories around the campfire, translated into written form for the first time. It was worshipped as the first history of humanity. We were innocent enough at the time, not to suspect that, that which was written, might not be completely true, Just as we tend to believe everything we read on the internet is true.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Bradley,
        It depends on what you call divine. I have had spiritual experiences where I felt an alignment with the cosmic order. One in particular, I was aware of the principles of quantum mechanics eleven years before I would receive any formal instruction on the subject. I would come to write a book about it. I would call it divinely inspired, but it wasn't some deity revealing this to me, it was the cosmos speaking for itself. From my own experiences, my understanding of God and of evolutionary processes are in complete harmony.

        Spiritually experience takes you beyond common knowledge. That is what is meant by divine inspiration. Yet to say that there is no argument about it is false. Even scientific facts are argued in order to gain a deeper understanding of them. The same is true for sacred tales and scripture.

        Scripture was meant for reflection and contemplation. It wasn't intended to be taken literally. Moses told Joshua to meditate day and night concerning the book of the law in order to make his way prosperous. So one has to think about it. One simply can't say this is what the book says and leave it at that. I believe the bible WAS divinely inspired. But you still have to be a freethinker if you are to gain any real value from it. Fundamentalists are a wrench in the gears.
        • Mar 13 2014: Roy
          Your thinking is wonderful. I might endeavor to disagree but it would only be for the pleasure of conversation.
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2014: Very much appreaciate your comment, Roy. I think there is a crucial difference between RELIGION that has inspired great scientists and the stiff CHURCH establishment that is denying new ideas.

      The most INFLUENTIAL SCIENTISTS OF ALL TIME, to mention just a few, such as Galileo or Sir Isaac Newton, or even more contemporary to us Gregor Johann Mendel and Charles Darwin, and our most outstanding contemporary physicist Werner Heisenberg have had DEEPLY SPIRITUAL MINDS. They profoundly believed in God and were driven by their belief.

      RELIGION as BELIEF never was against these great men and their work.

      Well, YES, Scientific Ideas were commonly not accepted, but only because of the Authorities’ Ignorance, poor knowledge of all sorts and the RULING force of that ignorance - not the religion as belief.

      Religion has its own Unfortunate history of “development”. As we know, Early Christianity had many interpretations called Gnostic Gospels, which was the authentic form of Christianity, that could fit somewhat different experiences and mentalities.

      Since Emperor Constantine the Christianity has been squeezed into a limited dogmatic system, bloodily demolishing any interpretation of Christianity other than the one that Constantine himself had approved, within his Church.

      In any case, I think, in this conversation many members confuse and mix-up CHURCH establishment with RELIGION as inspirational BELIEF, that has served practically every great scentist in history.
    • Mar 29 2014: gI could not agree more with Roy Bourque. If one knows the history of Europe, one know that it was the Church that started the great Universities of Europe, however the So-called Enlightenment, which was at its origins was anti-Christian created this dichotomy between religion and science and exploited it. Few people know that it was a priest who first proposed the "Big Bang "theory. Their areas of expertise are complementary not inimical.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2014: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. ..The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

    ― Carl Sagan
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2014: They are not mutually exclusive. They are not mutually exclusive because science for someone may explain things that religion may not be able to for them. Religion may fill in the gap of curiosity for things unexplained by science.
  • thumb
    Mar 8 2014: The story of Adam and Eve is misunderstood because it has been taken too literally. IMO, the whole stories of Genesis, creation, Adam & Eve are supposed to be simplified metaphors for certain sublime ideas about how it all began and how the animate was arisen from the inanimate. Please note that I don’t say explanations but metaphors.

    I think Albert Einstein has laid very nicely the science and religion on a common basis. He said that they both are the expressions of the human spirit’s aspiration for the sublime. The aspiration for understanding the physical sublimity has created the science, whereas the aspiration for understanding the spiritual sublimity has created the religions.
  • Mar 17 2014: All knowlege is based in some fundamental pre-assumptions, thats why Socrates said that all he knows is that he knows nothing.

    So science is not the absolute truth, the science only makes sence (in other words, it creates models to proves it not contradict itself) based on pre-assumption (in other words, belief)

    So if a person belief on god might be consider a religion, and it makes sence to him, and explain better the world then the previous model, so i can garante to you that this religion is very well align with the science this person is doing
    • Mar 18 2014: Nope. Science can be traced all the way "down" to reason. Reason being why science is not "belief" at its base. But reason and evidence. I don;t think of science as absolute truth. But it is not unfounded belief either. It's founded conclusions that stand for as long as the evidence sustains such view. But science integrates facts (which are true by definition), into the how it works. Science is about understanding the facts, and it is this understanding that might need revision. That's a far cry from religious belief any way we might try to twist it around.
      • Mar 18 2014: Then why would science and religion be at odds if they where no alike in some way
        • Mar 19 2014: They are at odds because religions claim to know stuff that science then discovers to be false. Then religion stubbornly denies the facts, while science goes on trying to explain and integrate those facts into further knowledge.
  • Mar 12 2014: I think a healthy thing to remember is that the greatest thinkers in the history of humanity have struggled throughout the ages to understand this question without ever coming to a consensus. I do not presume to be even in the same zip code, much less ballpark as these men and women. I don't have any definite answers to these questions, and I'm ok with that because I accept the possibility that there might not Be definite answers to them. It seems healthy and natural hold and discuss opinions, discourse can and should be a constructive activity, but without an open mind to at least try and understand a different viewpoint, there can be no discourse or even communication, only a closed eyes shouting match from opposing soapboxes.
  • Mar 12 2014: One question :

    Aren't you guys mixing Religion with Spirituality and Belief with Faith , and then again mixing with science and the final outcome is confusion ?
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2014: All God(s) reside inside the mystery of lighting,thunder & fire earthquakes etc until science takes down the veil of our fears & ignorance. Once the veil is lifted by the forbidden fruit of knowledge then all innocence is lost thus no more Adam & Eve al natural. Take the Genesis tale at face value , or with poetic inertia either way knowledge must be halted-if the story is metabolized as true-.
    The other trick in place is language-human language- Language that is one of many adaptations favored by natural selection and leveraged upon to build cultures and all things in it. Extremely useful tool -paramount indeed- but as any other tool it has its limits . Language starts to break down when we attempt to use it to describe things beyond our everyday experience.Take for example the expression "an eternal supernatural being that resides beyond space & time" , the subject-predicate structure seems fine (also a whole "logical" apparatus could be built upon this expression as a premise), The problem is that when the statement is taken as unquestionably true then enters the fallacy of assigning concrete values a priori to concepts. We have no choice but to use language to talk about "things" that bear no a single anchor point. Language also breaks down when we talk QM, for as a custom language is just like a cargo truck delivering from point A to point Z, the problem is the content & meaning of the cargo. Words like spin,space momentum, time from classic physics loose meaning in Qm. N Bohr thought that our language is scalar to our frame of reference, thus not really useful for QM in or the only way to talk QM with any sense would require classic concepts,like measurements in a lab to scale beyond that QM will escape the communicating power of language.
    All the "contradiction" between science& religion is a product of language, reality is not made out of words;Words are used to describe reality and not always correctly.
  • thumb
    Mar 8 2014: Some scientists and religious people have shown that science and religion can co-exist. However, it takes a high level of understanding, a lot of deep thinking, to reconcile scientific and religious concepts. One of the recommendations of Bible scholars is not taking Biblical passages literally.
  • Mar 7 2014: There are people that are scientists and also consider themselves to be religious.

    In general, I find these people to be less dogmatic in their religion than the typical literalist Bible thumper.


    Therefore, I think the better question is, "Is literalist religious dogma compatible with science?"

    Science keeps making the Kingdom of God smaller and smaller, because God resides in the fringes of unknown that surround our knowledge. Therefore, science and religion are only compatible when the religious are willing to forsake religious dogma and embrace religious allegory.
  • Apr 1 2014: Simple answer "NO"

    They are not mutually exclusive; they are made to be mutually exclusive by politics, closed minds, hypocrisies, self interest groups, con merchants, committees, propaganda, lies, inane theories, superstitions, and gullibility, relative to both of them as holism's; and subject to the same within their various divisions/areas of worship or studies.

    Science for me and IMO should be about discovering and understanding the "Laws of Nature = The Laws of Physics, which are the laws of the Intelligent Universe/Creator

    Religions for me and IMO should be about discovering and understanding the "Spiritual/Metaphysical Mysteries of Nature" which do not appear to be, or be the "Same Laws of Nature" but as they are also inherent within the holism of the laws of nature; they must obey laws of nature we are not aware of; and they are therefore as important to me as are the laws of physics

    I have had experiences, and still do have experiences, that cannot be explained from the pragmatic aspect of my mind; so do I shout hallelujah and yell out I have seen the light, or walk around in fear of the supernatural No!

    Because I trust in the Universal Intelligence/Creator, because I know everything good or evil that happens has a logic and reason behind it that I cant fathom and I accept this; because I cant read the mind of the Creator or the Creators blueprints.

    And when the religions and cults come at me with their silly religious cants and dogma, and when I read inane silly theories of physics, I get the same word coming into my head every time "Bullshit"

    In sum everything and I exist for a reason, and if I did not exist for a reason, then I would not be able to reason; therefore it follows the Creator Created me to reason, not swallow bullshit.

    And this applies equally to both Religions and Science


    .
    • Apr 2 2014: Ask a scientist "why is it that what goes up must come down?" you get BS. And it was yourself that provided the only reasonable answer to "why do they say that Christ's murder was a sacrifice?"
  • Mar 30 2014: IMO based on intuition and fact, the story of Moses discovering the Hebrews had cast a gold calf in his absence to worship, rather than an unknowable God of creation.

    Smacks of the nature of Christianity generally and in the USA today.

    Whereby and despite the fact that Jesus who had visited the Temple in Jerusalem two days previously; then knowingly put his life on the line, in order to expose the Jewish Priesthood as betrayers of the Temples Sacredness, and the Greek merchants (Whose trading opposition the Carthaginians, the Romans had entirely slaughtered to the last pregnant female and baby as a finale to the Punic Wars) and the Greek merchants, money exchangers, and usurers deceits and cheating before crowded market of their customers.

    Result the crowds were so enraged, that they fled before the crowds with Jesus following on behind (hence the view, of him having single handedly driven them from the Temple) and then he openly declared to the still enraged crowd out side of the Temple, that the Jewish Priesthood had betrayed their faith by allowing his fathers house to be bought and used as a den of thieves.

    Predictable Result; the Jewish priesthood, money exchangers, usurers and merchants had to shut this man up permanently! And thus following some very rapid pay offs and politicking, and despite his having been found innocent of any crime; he was tortured, and forced to drag his cross through the streets in warning to others should they open their mouths, and crucified in less than 24 hours.

    And therefore and despite the fact that the message he had decided to deliver, was of such importance he was willing to lay down his life; his message was subverted by the Romans, who claimed/claim he died as a sacrifice for mankind sins, rather than theirs and their Greek mates.

    Result the evolution of Capitalism; and as in line with the Golden Calf; the American Dollar, bears the words "In God We Trust";

    As money talks their Capitalistic language, God does not.
    • Mar 30 2014: "..his message was subverted by the Romans, who claimed/claim he died as a sacrifice for mankind sins, rather than theirs and their Greek mates." I always wondered about the "sacrifice for mankind sins" and you, Carl Dalton!, have just explained it.
  • Mar 29 2014: Science and religion both concentrate on the hows and whys surrounding and affecting human reality.

    Exceptionally intelligent scholars in both disciplines of learning and knowledge exist. The distinction between these experts is the source and the nature of the knowledge used to explain strongly held and promoted positions to answers that center on supernatural creation vs the natural history of humanity.

    Relatively speaking, in human history, the new player is the modern scientist whom became a consequence of observable physical reality that offered repeatable (empirical) feedback data of the real world. The Christian faith is the widespread traditional religion consisting of numerous denominations I am most familiar, representing what faith means to many of us.

    I don't think the crux of the question is whether science and religion are mutually exclusive, but where there is differences in cited factual accounts of the real world, should the evidence provided via scientific standing knowledge demand consideration from those of blind faith holding a conflicting explanation?

    I do not discount the idealism in faith, nor science. On the other hand there have been cases of self serving abuses in both, but the science community is more subject to accountability by its imposed conservative nature and the peer review process. Religion is based on sacred communications and standings not subject to review by the partishioner.

    IMO religious beliefs are subject to reality, but that doesn't mean the mysteries of life don't have a way of humbling the most scientifically knowledgeable among us.
  • Mar 18 2014: Atheism

    Place one "Humanitarian Atheist" on one side of the Universal Scales of Justice

    And

    Place one “Pew Renting” Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Politician, or Media Magnate on the other side of the “Universal Scales of Justice”;

    Which side of the “Universal Scales of Justice” do you think will be judged as being the unworthy?

    The volume of intelligent thought that has gone into creating the chasm's between Creationism Science and Atheism; equates to the same volume of space, that exists between choosing heads or tails.

    Consequences

    If it is indeed true that blessed are the Meek for they will inherit the Earth

    So it follows;

    All directly or indirectly involved; in the vile and cowardly acts of burning alive innocent women, their unborn and their children with napalm; and inflicting upon those surviving;

    The horror of witnessing their children torn apart or crippled by land mines; or born with horrendous birth defects; due to the vile and cowardly use of neuro - toxic agents, defoliants, and spent nuclear fuel rods.

    May indeed say "In God - Allah - Deity we Trust"; for any Just Deity will certainly send them all to Hell; regardless of race, culture or religion.


    Carl
  • Mar 18 2014: Belief and the Meaning of Life

    Life began; when I, You, We were naked, and "unwittingly' forced through a door, and into the unknown.

    Life will end; when I, You, We, are naked, and then forced through another door, and into the unknown.

    And all we can be certain of as we face this door, is that it is the same force; that pushed us through the first door that is surely pushing us through this door.

    And whatever it was; that pushed us through the first door, and is now pushing us through this door; is surely waiting for us on the other side.

    And regardless as to what we were led, and tempted to believe; by Machiavellian - Predators; or what we chose to encompass of all this, and hence to espouse in our lives;

    No power exists; that can convert, pervert, buy or destroy, "The All" that is waiting for us, on the other side.

    And as the sleeping consciences' of our conscience denying, or our conscience - stricken minds'; rouse and awaken, to flash the past events of our life before us; all we will know;

    Are the emotions that we feel, as we consider the past events of our lives, and the decisions that we made in the full light of our conscience;

    And the ever increasing and all-encompassing light, of "The All" of that slowly, but now clearly, opening door.

    And although at the end of our lives, we will find ourselves to be alone and unsupported; by those who deceived, betrayed and used us;

    There will be solace in the fact; that they also, will soon be standing in front of this same door;

    And we can only hope that unlike they; as we face the "All Knowing"; that we will be found worthy, of being pushed through that first door again;

    To continue to travel the never ending "Why's - Quest's of the Way", of the curiosities, and endeavours of life, which always lead us on;

    To arrive once more at the door; of the Mother and Father (Universal Authors), of the "Never Ending Stories" of learning, and life.

    Carl
  • Mar 17 2014: I don't know if everyone here gets notified of newly released talks, but here's one that seems related to this conversation.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason
    • Mar 17 2014: Thank you for this link, I had not seen it before. It was very informative and did relate well to empathy.
  • Mar 17 2014: Hello TED friends! I hope you all had a nice weekend. I appreciate the continued conversation and have caught up on the posts. It's my understanding that some (not all but some) of you feel that the two are able to be balanced. If so, a follow-up question: Are religions and science only able to co-exist when they have no impact on each other?

    Explanation: science relies on evidence for scientific Theories, religion does not use this process and instead relies on faith or personal experience. The two may only avoid conflict when they are held apart? A religion ought not make worldly claims. Likewise, nothing ought to be claimed as science without evidence. Is this a reasonable conclusion to make?
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2014: GOOD question Tai..."Are religions and science only able to co-exist when they have no impact on each other?"

      I don't see it as the practices that conflict, but rather the people who choose to separate them? The conflict seems to arise when one or the other challenges an existing belief? If nothing is challenged, and people accept each other's beliefs as each other's beliefs, there is really no conflict.....is there? It is when one tries to push his/her personal beliefs onto others that there is a conflict?
      • Mar 17 2014: Yes, in the case that religion accepts changes from the scientific community, I agree here.
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Well Tai, even if religion does not accept changes from the scientific community, it isn't a challenge until religious groups try to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone?

          As a personal practice, they do not need to accept scientific beliefs for THEMSELVES. The challenge is their need to impose their beliefs on everyone else....in my humble perception.
    • Mar 17 2014: That IS a good question sir. It seems though that these two issues can't help but come in contact with each other and have an impact. This conversation as a whole could probably be studied to find the source of conflict. At a broad view I would say conflict comes from a lack of effort in seeing another point of viee and acknowledging/respecting theidea that people have the "right" to hold a different viewpoint. Most of us agree that western religion taken literally doesn't fit with the modern scientific findings and theories and likely shouldn't be taken as literal historical fact, but that doesn't devalue some of the lessons that can be learned from western religions, namely loving and respecting others. On the other hand there is sometimes a lack of acknowledgment of the evolution of scientific thought as our tools become more accurate and our understanding of the "meaning" of the data changes. To be a fundamentalist on either side of the debate seems to be too narrow a view in my opinion. As our understanding of the physical world changes (and it has been changing constantly since the dawn of h umanity) so should our interpretations of religous thought change. Is there any scientific fact or our understanding of said fact that has remained unchanged in the last 2000 years? Is there any religousbelief whose interpretation in the context of our worldview can remain unchanged. I don't think so in either case. I think ultimately the conflict stems from clinging to tightly to "knowing" the truth. As much as a lot of peoplr find comfort in religous faith, so too do some people find comfort in the belief of the infallibilty of whatever current scientific paradigm they happen to be living through. As always, keep calm, take a deep breath, try to keep an open mind, and talk to people in a manner that you would want to be talked to in, and communication can take place.
      • Mar 17 2014: I am in general agreement here as well, I do not think that it is possible to avoid contact either.. I would only add that it is better if love and respect have a non-religious basis but I understand that this is the main positive that religion can provide.
        • thumb
          Mar 18 2014: Tai,
          Love and respect do not have a religious basis. While these elements are often taught by religions as part of the foundation of the religion, how many times has there been abuse and violation of human rights in the name of a religion, or a god? How many times do religions discriminate under the umbrella of their dogma (rejection of same sex partners for example)? How many times are people abused and religious leaders protected because they are "religious" (sexual abuse of children for many years for example)? Some of these practices are criminal behaviors.....not love and respect! Some folks believe, however, if one does it in the name of a religion or a god, it is ok!
      • thumb
        Mar 18 2014: Good points Jacob!
        One can simply observe this conversation to understand the source of conflict!

        I agree that conflict often comes from a lack of effort to see or understand another point of view and acknowledging/respecting the idea that people have different viewpoints.

        There can indeed be lessons learned from religions, and one important one, as you insightfully recognize, is loving and respecting others. Unfortunately, although many religious folks preach love and respect, they are often not practicing it.

        Another good point.....the holy books were written by humans a couple thousand years ago and reflect many ideas of that time. Things change, and while those books may have some valuable lessons, things have definitely changed in our world. The new pope said something about it may be time to rethink some of the churches dogma! Well yeah.....after 2000 years, it might be time to re-evaluate???

        I totally agree with you....the conflict lies in thinking one "knows" the truth, and arguing that "truth" no matter what evidence shows us something different. I think that is why religious fundamentalist often contradict themselves.....they are repeating some of the old "stuff", while realizing at some level that it simply does not make any sense.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2014: Hi Tai.
      You are right in a way. When science and religion have no impact on one another they co-exist. This is probably because they have no axe to grind with one another.
      Where they normally collide is on the subject of 'Origins'. Here the 'evidence' is pretty well understood by both sides. However, one side believes the evidence is in agreement with the bible, the other side believes it is not. Both sides would claim the mantle of scientific reasoning, so the differences are driven by well credentialed scientists within the field. Some are so persuaded by the science that they adopt the 'religion' as well, others remain sceptical and just stick to the science.
      Personally I see no point in following a religion which has no basis in fact. So, in my case, as in many others, the science preceded the faith, and not the other way round. So in my particular case science and religion are easy bedfellows.

      :-)
      • thumb
        Mar 18 2014: Hi peter, I suggest we don't agree on all the evidence.

        E.g. evidence the earth and universe is billions of years old. Suggest some of these positions are more than differences in interpretation.

        suggest there are more than two sides. it's not just bible believing literalists and non bible believing folks.

        even amongst Christians there are different views of origins. Some accept an old earth and evolution but believe yhwh was involved.

        also amongst the others there are those that believe in the Koran or other theistic or deistic origin stories.
        • thumb
          Mar 18 2014: You're right, there is a whole panorama of beliefs, as many as there are humans. So to say that it boils down to 'Science' on one side, and 'religion' on the other, is way too simplistic.

          :-)
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2014: Religion and sciences have something very similar in nature. These are beliefs empowered by highly emotional drive and imagination. Without these conditions no scientist would be able to find the location of his own lab.

    Without these two natural conditions, emotional drive and imagination, neither scientists nor religious servants, scholars of all sorts, or commoners may stay alive.

    When one is inspired to create or discover “things” and visions, but these ideas become some sort of a cult, for a person, or for masses, this is always the beginning of disasters: psychological, cultural, ethical, political and even industrial (when the lab discoveries have been massproduced)


    It’s happening in our normal everyday life. Nowadays, Religious dogmas are getting replaced by Scientific dogmas. What kind of true evidence and proven experience our postmodern sciences offer?

    Believing in scientific proofs - is a very questionable type of faith. The more intuitive our thinking is the more questions we face. Every idea when it is sound --- is a PROCESS, never a dogmatic idea.

    Any sort of cult we witness or get involved into, is mass-hysteria.
    • Mar 16 2014: Tremendous+++!

      Would add in curiosity

      Sudden strange thought, curious indeed; Imagination - Curiosity - Emotion (ICE) :: Womb - Light at the end of the tunnel - Entry into a cascade of the emotional aspects of/to reality.

      Ah well, life goes on!

      Carl
      • thumb
        Mar 17 2014: It's so encouraging when we can think along and make sense beyond the words - rare treat!
    • Mar 17 2014: Hi again Vera,

      I have to agree and disagree. If we went equating things and endeavours by the passion that we might expect them to convey, then we would be unable to distinguish between things and endeavours. I agree that religion and science can be empowered by emotional drive and imagination, but I would not call both "beliefs." Reason being that ""belief is a word with several meanings, one of them implying that such "belief" is unfounded. I rather avoid that possible equivocation.

      Then I disagree that such drive and imagination makes them similar at the core, and the core is what matters in this debate. There, we find deep differences, and those are the source of their conflicts.
  • Mar 16 2014: I did not dismiss science as faith, ::(Edit 17/3/14 Others please note; I used the word "Belief" in the original text, of IMO re religions and science, not the word "Faith": Belief is an acceptance of something, and that the something is true; Faith is the complete acceptance, and complete trust in something, and that the something is true, to the point of being a conviction. Which is why I said IMO/in my opinion = personal opinion/conviction, and given the controversial nature of the subject, added "which I am entitled to hold". And no one is required to agree with or accept a single word I say; however some may have similar opinions, and for others it may be a new trend of thought. If however some choose rather than allow me to freely share my opinions with others, and choose to attack my personal convictions, it is my legitimate right to defend them; especially when those attacks contain, insults and abuse, and attempts to change the original context and words of what was said; e.g. from belief to faith: End of edit):: the BB non-sense that defies the fundamental laws of physics, but you are totally incapable of accepting this; which is why you failed to address this fundamental contradiction between theory and reality.

    You read things in that have not been said, you ignore points in order to avoid addressing them, you should look towards becoming a politician, and later perhaps a State Governor, or even a World Leader you certainly are ideal material for a future World Leader.

    So let me make this clear to you, you have now exceeded my levels of patience and I am done with you; you have clearly demonstrated that your mind is so closed to truth, that it is a total waste of time communicating with you or reading anything that you have to say, in regard to any subject whatsoever.

    Therefore you are deleted from my inbox, and anything further from you will also be immediately deleted without being addressed.

    Goodbye
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2014: I don't think that the Higher Power would be so unlettered as to not include randomness in making order out of chaos. The God I believe exists is totally other. God is not a thing. I can't describe other because it is not within the reach of my ken. God is the ground of being and the horizon of all that is. I can experience God if I love, appreciate beauty. In my vocabulary Absolute is another name for God. Science cannot prove God does not exist or does exist. For instance ask a scientist if he/she is sure about what is real? There are so many things that have yet to be explained and yet the atheists seem so sure of themselves. If they are railing against a primitive version of God as described in various religions and still believe in duality (reward and punishment)) then I would agree that such a God does not exist. Peace to all.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2014: “I call him religious who understands the suffering of others.”

    ― Mahatma Gandhi
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2014: Agreed. . Understanding engenders compassion which is a component of the verb love.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2014: Thank you for you comment, Helen. It is hard for many of us to understand others perfectly - the law of nature reagarding our uniqueness within everyone of us, but we may learn about ethics a little more while helping others: we may easily harm others applying our own methods that are good for us.

        I do not much like that old Golden Rule...
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2014: Well you have to listen and observe not form opinions about others' problems.. One answer does not fit all Why do you not like the Golden Rule? I don't like the eye for eye rule. Peace.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2014: I recently read some work by Mahatma Gandhi, you might like what he says:

        “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”


        Will get back on the Golden Rule a little later.

        Cheers.
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Agreed. I will be looking forward to your post. :-)
      • thumb
        Mar 17 2014: Hello, Helen.

        Here is some relatively close translation of the Golden Rule expressed throughout millennia.

        Confusianism
        What you don’t want done to yourself, don’t do to others.
        -Sixth Century B.C.

        Buddhism
        Hurt not others with that which pains thyself.
        -Fifth Century B.C.


        Classical Paganism
        May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.
        -Plato - Fourth Century B.C.

        Christianity
        Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.
        -Jesus of Nazareth- First Century

        Sikhism
        Treat others as thou wouldst be treated thyself.
        -Sixteenth Century A.D.


        I think that THE NEW GOLDEN RULE SHALL TEACH about more ethical approach:

        NEVER treat others as you would like to be treated yourself -- unless they agree to it first --because what is good for you may be damaging for others.

        Love and Peace
      • thumb
        Mar 17 2014: Helen and Vera,
        I wholeheartedly agree....to have understanding and compassion, it is important to really listen with respect to others.

        I like the golden rule because it gives us a base idea from which we can move toward more understanding and compassion.

        Within the basic idea, we have the ability to open the heart and mind to determine if what we are trying to give to someone is actually what they want or need.

        The challenge with this kind of conversation (science and religion), is that some folks are so attached to their own particular belief, it seems difficult to listen to a different belief.
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Hi Colleen and Vera........You are right. Giving a loaf of bread to someone with celiac disease would not be a good idea even at this basic level.. Even helping someone by giving what they ask for may not be a good idea. Love can be thoughtless.
          caring does not mean imposing one's own idea of good on another. I understand that and I see many good examples throughout history. Be blessed
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2014: Good example Helen, of trying to give something to someone that they do not want or need!

        I wholeheartedly agree....caring does not mean imposing what we think is "right" onto others. I know you understand this and practice it as well:>)

        Remember when you introduced pantheism a long time ago in one of these religion/science conversations? As I recall, you gently suggested it as your belief, and I had never heard of it before, so I explored pantheism a little bit, and discovered that for me, many of the concepts embraced by pantheism make sense. Although I was not familiar with the term pantheism, some of the concepts are also included in some buddhism and sufism, which I was drawn to explore years ago. Many of the concepts felt/feel natural to me, and I was grateful for your suggestion and the opportunity to explore new information.

        You are not at all forceful about your personal beliefs, and seem to accept other's beliefs, which to me, is appealing, and encourages more learning about you and your beliefs. Those who try to force and impose their personal beliefs on others, are preventing genuine connections with others....don't you think?
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2014: Thank you for such a nice post.....I try to be humble (don't always succeed) because I am aware that I cannot judge because I cannot know other's motives and some people accept authority figure beliefs as truth and are not free to think for themselves.. Actually I am a panentheist. I am fortunate because I see beauty and purpose everywhere except in violence. I was a cradle Catholic and it was a struggle to "get out of the box" My Higher Power is love and it stabilizes me in stressful times. You are such a kind, thoughtful and courteous person and I like to read your posts because they are informative and conciliatory. Be blessed....PS. One of my favorite poets is Rumi and also Kahlil Gibran.
      • thumb
        Apr 6 2014: Thank you for your nice post and kind feedback as well Helen:>)

        I think/feel that we all try things to the best of our ability at any given time, and I agree that it makes no sense to try to judge others because we never really know the circumstances of another person's life journey.

        I too was born into a catholic family (cradle catholic?....I never heard that term), and even as a wee little lass, started questioning the teachings, which seemed contradictory and hypocritical to me. Love thy neighbor if s/he is catholic and never mind everyone else because they are going to hell anyway??? We are all one....except those we do not choose to accept???

        Kindness, in my perception, is a gift to myself as well as to anyone else who happens to benefit from it....seems like you have a similar mindset:>)

        I wholeheartedly believe that religion and science co-exist. The question seems to be.....on what level do some folks accept either one, and that is sometimes determined by the individual's personal beliefs.

        Thanks again for your kind words, and I believe we are all mirrors to each other....reflecting back and forth all the time.....I love your beautiful mirror:>)
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2014: Hello Tai. I do mean that scientific research is still quite "unruly" in sense of ethics, this is happening in all fields. For instance, there are endless "experiments" with children, claimed to be harmless, when children are involved in some artificially furnished conditions, small room, and asked to play some "cognitive" games with researchers. It is not at all beneficial to anything and anyone to judge a child ability to think by limiting him/her in totally artificial conditions. Also to "study" animal behavior and cognitive abilities when animals are locked up in cages is a dreadful way to "learn".

    I've mentioned only so-called "harmless" cases....my heart cannot take the rest... sciences are more sophisticated these days than the bloodily notorious Spanish Inquisition, and also authorized by the law.

    Thank you for your reply :)
  • Mar 14 2014: All that we are; inclusive of all our senses, our emotions, our intelligence, our imaginations, our opinions, our beliefs, our dreams, our sciences, our learning, "All stem from one source, and "that is" The Universe".
    • Mar 14 2014: Agreed here.
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2014: I am curious Carl........

      In another comment, you wrote..." ....I can only place my faith and my trust in the Universe/Creator, myself and my dog."

      Are you suggesting that the "Universe/Creator" are one and the same?

      Edit:
      I notice that you refer to "Universe/Creator" in several of your comments. This seems a bit confusing, because the definition of creator is..."one that creates usu. by bringing something new or original into being".

      One generally refers to a god as creator. Are you referring to universe/creator/god as one and the same?
      • Mar 15 2014: Universe is the creator and may be also perceived as God. But, not all perceived or man made creators and perceived or man made Gods and connotations of Gods are Universe.
        • thumb
          Mar 15 2014: Hello double smiley face.... :-) :-) !

          I agree that there are various perceptions regarding universe, god, creator(s) etc. That is why I asked Carl the question. I was trying to understand what his perception is, and how he is using the terms....as I said.....I am curious:>)

          It is difficult to have a conversation, if I am not sure what a person is talking about.....that is why I ask questions....to clarify:>)
    • Mar 15 2014: No Question of Disagreement.What ever happens in this world or whatever happens to anyone does not depends on only one factor or only one thing but several factors and several thing come together, Interact with each other,interplay with each other and coordinate with each other.
      • thumb
        Mar 15 2014: I agree :-) :-), that various factors contribute to everything in our world.:>)
  • Comment deleted

  • Mar 12 2014: What I refer to is religious scripture and the stories and claims in them that the religious believe. Miracles, prophets, floods, demons, and other examples listed by other commenters are at odds with science.

    I am not referring to spirituality or the use of "god" to provide a term for the laws of math and science. This is not what I mean by religion. What I am saying is theists are at odds with science, not deists.
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2014: ""Miracles, prophets, floods, demons, and other examples listed by other commenters are at odds with science.""
      I guess science knows about floods. As for the others; why should we discount anything just because science has not explained it yet ? If we take that attitude then scientific endeavour will grind to a halt. Some scientists have limited themselves to materialism. This attitude is fairly recent & greatly limits further discoveries. Thankfully many are still willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

      :-)
      • Mar 13 2014: Evidence? Please provide examples.
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2014: The superhuman programming of DNA points to a superhuman programmer. We struggle to decipher it; to believe it came about by mutation & selection is just silly. A mathematical impossibility .

          :-)
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2014: Peter,
          You say "selection is just silly". And you also tell us many times that your god is going to select those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. This sounds like a contradiction.

          The topic question is...."Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?"

          I don't believe religion and science are mutually exclusive, when one looks at all information realistically understanding the meaning and context.....without contradiction.
      • Mar 13 2014: I know how useless it is to explain this to you Peter, but it is mathematically demonstrable, and it has been demonstrated, that random mutations and selection can produce programs that no humans would have dreamed of producing. That is programs that solve apparently intractable problems Peter.

        So you're wrong. Our DNA is far from being an indication of some superhuman programmer.

        Now let's see you miss the point, as usual.

        :-)

        P.S. Peter ironically said "Thankfully many are still willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads," forgetting that he's referring to people who sign an article of faith. Peter? Do you notice the contradiction between what you say and what signing an article of faith means?
      • Mar 14 2014: I am sorry Peter but I don't have the interest to explain my 1301 biol class individually to all of the religious people that I encounter. I do thank those who have the patience to provide this education.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2014: It is surprising that it takes 1301 lectures to explain such a simple everyday phenomenon as happens spontaneously, without any help, in nature.

          :-)
      • Mar 15 2014: Isn't an atom a miracle of nature ? Isn't we human beings a miracle of nature ?

        If you want to be prophet then I can make you a prophet.And when I will do it , it will be a miracle.

        Aren't all the living beings a natural scientific instruments as well as natural scientific devices ?

        The problem with the science is that it thinks that things can only be known and measure with man made instruments and man made devices which have their own limitations.

        If I slap you then scientifically a sound will be produced which every one will hear. But, only you will be able to experience and feel the pain.And no man made scientific instrument can experience and feel the pain , the pain which you have experienced .

        If we look that way then according to science pain does not exists. It is myth according to science.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2014: It's mind boggling -- almost all postmodern scientific truth is still based on empirical observations and only believed to be our REAL world --- it is the very notorious method of thinking called Materialism.

        Materialism is the oldest philosophical tradition in Western civilization. Originated by pre-Socratic Greek philosophers in the 6th and 5th centuries before the Christian era, it reached its full classical form in the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus in the 4th century BCE...... and it prevails and RULES our scientific mentality of the 21st Century...
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2014: Religion and science are contentious issues. If there are still humans 100 years from now: Will science and religion be as contentious today as they will be in 100 years? Will science be relevant at that time? Will religion be relevant at that time?

    How will humans place science and religion in their lives 100 years, 200 years, 500 years hence?
    • Mar 12 2014: I think that religion has a good chance to win (easier to believe in superstitions than learn science), and then humanity will sink into another era of ignorance and superstition. Maybe after a while reason will resurge, and maybe the process will run in cycles.
      • Mar 16 2014: Well said Entropy!
        All that cannot be explained at the present time will become mystical-that is until an explanation can be found. I have great hope that science will win this tug of war eventually. The evidences so far put science 1 to a 1000 in the betting stakes to win. Your title sums up adequately the state of religion. It's comparable to trying someone for a crime and just relying on what you believe and ignoring the vital evidence-can you imagine the state of society if that was the case?
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2014: Do you honestly believe this Entropy? Or is your comment tongue in cheek? I suspect the latter?
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Hello Colleen,

          I agree with you. Let us hope that better edcuation, global trade and travel, and cultural exchanges will lead to better understanding, tolerance, and cooperation - instead of focusing on our differences, we will focus more on our common humanity, and that better understanding of science leads us to better understanding of our fellow human beings.

          "Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." Ralph Waldo Emerson
          http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ralphwaldo107033.html#byYV0BshDHTXUlyr.99
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2014: Interesting questions Rodrigo!

      I tend to agree with Derek that if there is going to be a "winner", it will probably be science. Based on statistics, half of the people in the US are changing, or totally abandoning religion completely, and that is happening in various parts of our world.

      However, this does not have to be a winner/loser situation. Science and religion CAN co-exist when/if some folks could discontinue the practice of trying to convince us that they are "right".....they have the one and only truth, and it seems like religious fundamentalists do this more than other groups?

      Abuse and violation of human rights (which has been practiced under the guise of religion), thrives in isolation. As long as individuals or groups of people can be isolated, they can be controlled. Our communication systems, and discussions like this on TED are causing questioning of beliefs and practices that were simply accepted for a very long time. Once people learn that there are beliefs other than their own, they might question their personal beliefs, and/or get really upset that anyone would DARE question their personal beliefs, which they believe to be the one and only.

      Questioning is common, normal behavior with science. Questioning is not traditionally encouraged or tolerated with some religions, so I can understand why some folks get really annoyed and contradictory when questioned about their religious beliefs. I think sometimes, it might be the first time they have questioned their beliefs?
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2014: Anyone one of us, every living soul is already making some change, For Better or For Worse.
      “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”
      ― Mahatma Gandhi

      Like your super-curiosity, Rodrigo.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2014: Hi Rodrigo,
      As you write in your first comment...."Religion and science are contentious issues"......and I will add.....for some people.

      Yes indeed....." Let us hope that better education, global trade and travel, and cultural exchanges will lead to better understanding, tolerance, and cooperation - instead of focusing on our differences, we will focus more on our common humanity, and that better understanding of science leads us to better understanding of our fellow human beings."
      "Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." Ralph Waldo Emerson"

      Well said Rodrigo!
  • Mar 11 2014: I would saythat since some of our greatest scientists have held religious beliefs then no they are not mutually exclusive. Understanding and relying on science doesn't necessarily mean religious thought should be abandoned though the Dalai lama says the following "if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims." I would rather say that whatever religious beliefs are contradicted must be reevaluated in a less literal sense. Even Darwin, whose theory you guys have been so vigorously discussing struggled with his thoughts on religion and did not consider himself an athiest, more an agnostic.

    'Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7]
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2014: Yes they are not 100% mutually exclusive.

      I agree when science disproves a religious doctrine there is a clash.
  • Comment deleted

    • Mar 8 2014: Soooooo, to summarize:

      1. Live arose on earth through a combination of random chance and the process of evolution.
      2. Live arose on some other planet through an unknown process, developed space-faring capabilities and 'seeded' all life on earth through some unknown process. Over millions of years, 99% of all these lifeforms died out because of some unknown reason, but humanity was one species lucky enough to survive, again, due to some unknown reason.

      And you say theory one is full of holes?
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 9 2014: "This is not a summary it is your own conclusions or theories based on a preconceived bias."
          I suppose I could have misunderstood you, so please do point out exactly where and how I misrepresented your position.

          "The theory of evolution is only ONE theory and has not been reproduced in any lab making it a very thin unsubstantiated theory."
          It is quite possible to see bacteria, fruit flies and mice evolve in a laboratory setting. In fact, it is possible to see it happening outside the lab if you know where to look, e.g. in plant and animal breeding. It may also be good to point out that panspermia is not an alternative theory to evolution, since it concerns the distribution and not the origin or development of life (well, according to your Wiki link anyway). To illustrate, one could ask: if life on Earth originates from alien lifeforms, then where did these alien lifeforms come from?

          "The fossil records are full of missing links that would be necessary to make that theory work and those links do not exists or have not been found to exist."
          While I do not necessarily agree with your assessment that fossil records are full of missing links, nor that panspermia can explain the origin of life, I notice that you have so far neglected to give any proof for your position. Indeed, your main argument seems to rely on disproving evolution. Can I suggest that you provide some kind of evidence for your theory, rather than pointing out a supposed lack of evidence for alternative theories?
        • Mar 9 2014: "The fossil records are full of missing links"

          Leaving aside the ignorance of thinking that fossils is the only way of testing evolution, it seems like some of those "missing links" have been found:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 9 2014: You sound very defensive. I apologise if I hurt your feelings somehow.

          As for your links, links do not constitute arguments. I can post a whole series of links, Google's got 128 million lying in waiting for me. But links do not an argument make. You make the argument, or, rather, didn't make one.

          For the sake of discussion, however, I did take a quick look at your links. Neither of them proofs what you say. The first is a Wiki article, which I cited in my response as proving the opposite of your theory. The second is a rather gross misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins ideas. The article is full of factual mistakes concerning important stuff, but even gaffes on minor details. For example, Roger Penrose never won a Nobel prize, but Wolf prize in physics. Not that the laureate status of Penrose matters to the argumentation, but how accurate can an article be that doesn't even get something like that right?
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 9 2014: First off, stop insulting me, or I will cease this discussion with you.

          As for what you're saying about evolution. Let's agree to disagree on this shall we? I do think that mutations constitute evolution of a species, and I do think that breeding, for example, a new type of dog confirms evolutionary theory. Perhaps you have more stringent criteria of proof. If so, good, give me some proof of panspermia then. For example, how does DNA manipulation provide proof that life on earth was seeded?
        • Mar 9 2014: If it were true that most mutations killed the organism then we would all be dead. We are born with an average of around 150 mutations.

          That most mutations would be deleterious (a word with a wide meaning that goes from slightly to very bad), was an assumption proven wrong by experiment and by measurements of the number of mutations per generation across many organisms.

          It is quite ironic that someone as ignorant to think that the fossil record is all there is to evolution would call someone else "dishonest" and "ignorant." It's also quite nonsensical to think that "gaps" in the fossil record prove evolution false. It's like saying that if we see a broken staircase, with some, or even several, missing steps, we should conclude that such thing proves that there was never a staircase.
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 9 2014: After reading your comments I am quite convinced that you wildly overestimate your understanding of scientific theory, and I am already helping you a lot by writing "scientific theory" there. What you have in mind consists of such deformed cartoons that I doubt there would be a point in having a conversation with you. If you answer my comment above about mutations, you might prove my point. So I'll wait and see.
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 9 2014: "It is highly probable ... [that intelligent life] much more advanced than humans ... could have visited at some point and seeded genetically modified [sic] organisms here that did not require the steps of evolution and metamophasised [sic] instead."
          How did these intelligent life forms arise? Where did they come from? Were they also seeded by other intelligent life? If so, then where did that life come from?

          I do not like repeating myself, so if you are unable to address this simple question, then I will not continue discussion with you. Seems reasonable no? One last chance to make a sensible point?
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2014: Where did this other intelligent life come from. Did it evolve?

          I think you may also be confusing lifecycles for evolution.

          I think you underestimate the challenges of traveling intersteller distances. Even the nearest stars are light years away. 99.9999999% of all the other stars are in other galaxies millions and billions of light years away..
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 10 2014: Let's break down the process of science to a 5-step programme:
          1. Be curious about something you don't understand
          2. Develop theories to explain it
          3. Gather data
          4. Test the theories and discard ones that fail
          5. Repeat

          Clearly, you are curious about the origin of life, and I appreciate and applaud this fact. However, we seem to be unable to progress past step two. To proceed, you would need to produce an internally coherent alternative theory of the origin of life. As stated in the Wiki article on this subject, any orthodox theory of panspermia cannot fulfil this role, because it is about the distribution rather than the origin of life. Perhaps you support a version of this theory that does explain the origin of life, if so, you must explain it before the discussion can proceed.

          I have tried to explain the fact that you need to expound on your theory for the third time now, and I grow weary of it. But I do sincerely hope that your inability to move the discussion forward is down to ignorance rather than malice. Ignorance, after all, is a curable disease.
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 11 2014: Actually research costs money. And time. I will not waste any more on you.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2014: From a natural perspective, basic life may have developed elsewhere and been seeded here by an asteroid hit, but still life needed to evolve somewhere. And humans obviously evolved after on earthin this scenario.

      secondly some natural agency may have put animals on this planet in the far distant past, but the alien agency and animals needed to develop somewhere first.

      then there are supernatural explanations backed by no evidence.

      actually the fossil record does show a progression. No modern mammals with dinosaurs or earlier life forms.

      What a weird coincidence that DNA indicates common ancestry.

      there are examples of speciation observed in human time scale., particularly with lifeforms with short lifespans.

      the theory of evolution is one of the most compelling scientific theories we have. It covers the origins of species not the origins of life.
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 10 2014: I indicated earlier the importance of theories, let me stress it here by pointing out two purely theoretical (we'll leave the factual inaccuracies for what they are) flaws:
          1. A clone, by definition, has exactly the same DNA as the original, so it is quite impossible for the clone to be different enough from the original to constitute a different species.
          2. Metamorphosis separates different stages of life of the same organism, and it is, again by definition, impossible that one organism constitutes multiple species.

          And it would really grace you if you stopped labelling knowledgeable individuals as ignorant. You're not looking very good here already, and this just makes it worse.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: If you have tried to understand the theory of evolution, all the evidence in support, and you still don't think it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life, you must be pretty hard to convince.

          It's one of the best established theories we have backed by mountains of evidence.

          It makes perfect sense of the facts we observe.

          Still I would flush it away if we found modern human fossils that are millions of years old.

          DNA perfectly maps out our common ancestry.

          No need to resort to alien or supernatural agency which is not supported by any evidence.

          150 years refining and verifying evolution, even the Anglican and catholic churches are convinced when they have vested interest in creationism, yet they find evolution a compelling theory.

          Are you saying we could not possibly evolved, or that we are just misinterpreting the evidence.
    • Mar 11 2014: I only have one account Jonathan.,

      I do understand that. That you would bring that as an excuse is very telling about your misunderstanding of science. Let me put it this way. We know that some american population came from England in some ships. If we found tombs of people of around those times, we could use the info from those buried people to infer what the ancestors of today's americans were like. But the probability that we found the actual bodies of the actual ancestors to the people of today is slim because it could be that we found persons who left no descendants. We can still see that they dressed like so and so, and etc, and infer that the characteristics still tell us something about the direct ancestors.

      Same goes for the "transitional" fossils. The probability that we've got the actual ancestors is slim. For example, there's a fossil of a boy who has transitional characteristics between a modern human and a more chimp-like form. It would be nonsense to say that this boy was our ancestor because he died too young to leave descendants. the boy still had characteristics that help us learn what our ancestors might have been like. The boy still has characteristics intermediate between modern human and other more chimp-like form. So he is still transitional.

      So, it does not matter that those are not the real ancestors. What matters is that they have those characteristics that show that indeed, animals with intermediary characteristics, with the first proto-feathers, first limbs, first ears, etc looked like at their first and other stages of evolution.

      DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

      Any fossils we find cannot but be side branches for obvious reasons. Reasons that seem to escape your limited knowledge. They still represent evidence of "cross-scpecies" evolution fair and square Your ignorance notwithstanding. (that you would say "cross-species" evolution shows even deeper ignorance on your part.)
      • Comment deleted

        • Mar 11 2014: OMG Jonathan pay attention! You can't seriously be saying that because some fossils are not direct ancestors they can't show evolutionary stages!

          This is about as ridiculous as claiming that Noah put all the animals on an Ark, or that you know anything about science!

          Now you have been issued a challenge. Either provide verifiable lab evidence that you can understand what I am explaining or admit that you suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect. Don't BS me with more ignorant claims. Show me that you understand what I explained.

          A dog turned into a cat? And you think that you understand evolution enough to reject it? Guys, Jonathan is just a troll. "He" does not give a damn, "he" is just playing.
    • Mar 11 2014: There was no reply button, Jonathan, because my comment was too deep. Check it out. Nothing to do with accounts. This reveals a bit of a lack of attention on your part. Maybe if you paid better attention you would understand what I and Timo X are trying to explain to you. Or maybe you don't have the basic knowledge to understand what we explain.

      Here the other comments that you decided to ignore:
      -----------------
      If it were true that most mutations killed the organism then we would all be dead. We are born with an average of around 150 mutations.

      That most mutations would be deleterious (a word with a wide meaning that goes from slightly to very bad), was an assumption proven wrong by experiment and by measurements of the number of mutations per generation across many organisms.

      It is quite ironic that someone as ignorant to think that the fossil record is all there is to evolution would call someone else "dishonest" and "ignorant." It's also quite nonsensical to think that "gaps" in the fossil record prove evolution false. It's like saying that if we see a broken staircase, with some, or even several, missing steps, we should conclude that such thing proves that there was never a staircase.
      -------------------------------------------
      After reading your comments I am quite convinced that you wildly overestimate your understanding of scientific theory, and I am already helping you a lot by writing "scientific theory" there. What you have in mind consists of such deformed cartoons that I doubt there would be a point in having a conversation with you. If you answer my comment above about mutations, you might prove my point. So I'll wait and see.
      • Comment deleted

    • Mar 11 2014: Read what I wrote Jonathan. I explained all of this quite carefully to you. Be a man and read it for understanding. Then try and answer accordingly. If you can't understand it, then say so instead of trying to distract us from your failures.

      I won't be waiting. I am now convinced that you lack the capacity to understand any of it. I am also convinced that you won't read it, and you'll only prove me right. Go ahead. Prove me right and "answer" without even pretending to understand any of my answers.
    • Mar 11 2014: "Jonathan",

      At this point I know that you could not care less. You did not demonstrate that you understood what I said. Where is your acknowledgement and your understanding of what I said? Where is your acknowledgment that now you understand how fossils would almost by necessity be side branches and that they still show intermediary stages in evolutionary histories? Where is your understanding of what side branches mean? Nowhere. I predicted that you would not pretend that you read what I wrote. You delivered. Thanks.

      I don't have anything to prove to my buddies. My buddies have enough intelligence to figure out the unsurmountable nature of your pretended ignorance.

      "If you persist do so at your own peril." Meh. You're a good joke once we figure out what you really are about.
  • thumb
    Mar 8 2014: Many Christians, such as myself, understand Genesis Chapter 1 to be non-literal. I don't know of any conflict between science and religion. Science is God's rulebook for running the universe.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2014: How do we tell if it was intended to be taken literally by the authors.

      I note there are about as many interpretations of the bible as there are outdoor who believe it was inspired by some supernatural agency.

      plenty of Christians take it literally.
      • thumb
        Mar 10 2014: "How do we tell if it was intended to be taken literally by the authors."

        That is a very good question, and the source of much disagreement between theologians.

        Here's my own opinion - take it for what you will:

        The universe obviously operates according to the rules of Science. If God exists, he uses science to run the universe, so there's no reason that God didn't create the universe scientifically.

        We have billions of years of cosmological, geological, and archeological evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, which suggests that Genesis is not written literally.

        Within the text of Genesis itself, there is evidence that it is not literal. One male and one female do not have the genetic diversity to propagate a species. God creates light on the first day but doesn't create the sun until the fourth, etc.
        • Mar 10 2014: Therefore the criterion is: if science shows it wrong, it is metaphorical. OK.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2014: Thanks lawren.

          I agree the literal explanation is wrong.


          Suggest it was either intended to be symbolic or literal. If it was meant literally, just the authors got it wrong.

          pity they didn't provide a commentary explaining what they meant. Might have helped avoid a lot of confusion.
  • Mar 7 2014: Kurt Gödel Werner Heisenberg Georges Lemaître Max Planck George Washington Carver Guglielmo Marconi Louis Pasteur Gregor Mendel James Clerk Maxwell Michael Faraday Alessandro Volta Daniel Bernoulli Carolus Linnaeus Isaac Newton Blaise Pascal René Descartes Galileo Galilei Johannes Kepler are afew that might have disagreed. These are only some of the Christian scientists. There are countless scientists that practice other religions as well. This is a recurring question here at TED, and though I don't consider myself religious I feel the need to remind folks not to close their minds, it limits us.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: Yes there have been and are scientific geniuses that believe in supernatural gods and goddesses, or reincarnation, Zeus, flying horses, talking donkeys, Valhalla, Hades, nirvana, etc

      I suggest the further back in time you go there were more gaps for God's to fit in.

      These days it seems more and more scientists are less and less religious, or at least squash their god beliefs into the remaining gaps, after death, or into some invisible spirit realm, and don't assume gods control the weather, or disease, or laboratory experiment outcomes.

      science can be compatible with religious belief of these beliefs do not conflict with the pursuit of what can be reasonably demonstrated via the scientific method
      • Mar 11 2014: Do you suppose Planck, Pasteur,Lemaitre, and Heisenberg etc believed in flying horses and talking donkeys that controled the weather, disease, and laboratory expiriment outcomes? Do you feel the need to be insulting to make your points? If some of the greatest scientists in the history of science had religous beliefs then I would say that they are not mutually exclusive, but then they didn't have access to your sound and well thought out argument.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: No intent to be insulting.

          I guess people smarter than me in the past have believed the earth is the centre of the universe and various speculative, supernatural beliefs.

          today a high school student is presented with a more complete understanding of the universe than the geniuses of a few hundred years ago, and profoundly different a few thousand years ago.

          Saying some great scientists had religious beliefs doesn't mean all forms of religious belief and resulting behaviours are compatible with science. You have people home schooled or indoctrinated with literal religious beliefs at odds with science, for example.


          we are all products of our time and location. we have the benefits of all the great discoveries of the people you mention.

          I suggest some forms of religious belief and resulting behaviours don't impact the scientific method and knowledge, but some do. if you believe in a young earth you won't be much of a geologist or cosmologist.

          If you believe a virgin had a baby, or that this or that god or goddess exists, there is no scientific proof but it may not necessarily prevent you reaching your full potential as a scientist. But these beliefs are non scientific. Allah, Baal, madam, Vishnu, Zeus, Yahweh, etc could exist, but it is unlikely all of them do and given no compelling evidence for any of them they are highly speculative and possibly don't exist.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: Trying to be more succinct.

          you can do good science and have religious beliefs.

          sometimes religious beliefs do conflict with science and may impede science.

          and even those beliefs that don't impact science may not be supported by science and may be arrived at via cultural indoctrination, flawed reasoning, and no evidence. The existence of invisible gods, goddeses, nature spirits, demons, angels, Kami, boddhisvas are at best unverifable scientifically.

          science and religion are neither entirely compatible or mutually exclusive. And much of the faith based beliefs are mutually exclusive, speculative, and can not all be correct, and at best are often unverifiable
      • Mar 11 2014: I absolutely agree with your last sentence, that is a fair assessment. If you'll scroll down just a bit you'll see my reply from two days ago in which I agreed with so many here in that you can maintain religous beliefs without being a religious literalist. I understand your aversion to beliefs that fly in the face of repeatable, varifiable, experimental data, I would only ask that you not close your mind completely by assuming that we have all the answers to life's questions and when trying to express your thoughts onthis subject, maybe not be insulting, disrespectful, or condescending as it is counterproductive.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: Thanks for the advice jacob.

          I agree it's good to keep an open mind to new information and be aware that science has it's limits.

          I certainly don't have all the answers and didn't mean to be insulting. Just trying to squeeze to many ideas into one comment I guess not explaining enough.

          I am thankful to ask the great scientists and inventors that came before. Our lives do truly do rest on the shoulders of giants.

          my poorly explained point was off you go back in time humans societies didn't have the scientific understanding we have today. Life was full of cultural mysticism, magic, superstition, religions.

          Geniuses may have held commonly held supernatural views for there time and place.

          or completely whacky views like newtons penchantfor alchemy etc. Or common religious dogma. such as virgin births or a six day creation etc.

          if I born is classical Greece I would mostly believe in the Olympian gods, Bacchus etc. I would be wary of omens etc.

          I also don't need to know everything to know past scientific geniuses from all civilisations and religious backgrounds believed in conflicting supernatural concepts and these are mutually exclusive. They can't all be right. Beliefs based on revelation aren't particularly scientific. I have no issue with prior holding these beliefs as long as they don't harm people. I respect people have earnestly explored life, the universe, and meaning and come up with different views. However, I'm also happy to point out the issues with these sorts of beliefs.

          I find literalist religious beliefs such as talking donkeys, virgin births, water waking, flying horses, beams of light impregnating Buddha's mother etc highly dubious yet people believe in these today, some much smarter and wiser than I. I just note they disagree amongst themselves on these issues. Still I support freedom of religion. I understand the psychological pull of religious type experiences, the social

          the creationist agenda against science is scary and it's workin
      • Mar 13 2014: I've got to admit I don't understand how someone can believe in these things in a literal sense either. I really think that most people, if questioned (in a calm and peaceful manner) will admit that most parables of any religion are just metaphors and/or allegories, but the second someone feels like they're being attacked or belitted their defenses will go up and the opportunity to communicate is missed. Questioning and/or losing one's faith can be a terrifying experience, i was raised in the church and it was a difficult time for me when i lost faith in the church, religous dogma, and the sanctity of the bible. The process of discarding the only worldview i ever understood to me took a dark place. This is why i advise courtesy and compassion when discussing these topics , because while your intention might be to educate people to current scientific thought/theories/facts, your also shaking the foundations of people's understanding od the world and sometimes their very identity.
        • Mar 16 2014: Hi Jacob
          I am 80yrs old and when I was a boy religion had us all in its grasp. Now times are changing as we realise the flaws in religion. I understand the feeling you must have endured giving up your religion but mine was the opposite I had a sense of what life was all about. I became part of that life that began three and a half billion yrs ago. I am part of a greater thing and without me and the rest of our species that whatever is evolving would not evolve. We are only partly rational, it is this that gives us a reason to live. Heaven as described by Christian belief would not appeal it would be a world of boredom beyond belief; a world where intelligence is not needed.
  • Mar 7 2014: It seems like it is up to every individual and that any constraints are merely personal beliefs . Here are some stats from a recent study (link below) and a quote from an obsure guy who some consider a scientist.

    The study also found that 18 percent ofscientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population); and 19 percent pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population).

    "To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men."-albert Einstein

    http://m.phys.org/news/2014-02-misconceptions-science-religion.html
    • Mar 8 2014: You do realise that Einstein is saying here that he is not at all religious in the common sense of the word?
      • Mar 8 2014: Ha ha, yes I realize this. I think Bryan and Darrell hit the nail on the head above when they spoke about religious literalism. I cant imagine Einstein believed in the garden if eden or noah's flood, but you can be religous without being a literalist. I think of all religous texts as being "spiritual" versions of Aesop's fables. The stories are just "cups" that allow us to sip the "truths" they contain or allude to
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: It was not Religion itself, but the old institution of CHIRCH with its stiff rules and "laws" that has been fighting new ideas of all kinds throughout our short history.

      The most INFLUENTIAL SCIENTISTS OF ALL TIME, to mention just a few, such as Galileo or Sir Isaac Newton, or even more contemporary to us Gregor Johann Mendel and Charles Darwin, and our most outstanding contemporary physicist Werner Heisenberg have had DEEPLY SPIRITUAL MINDS. They profoundly believed in God and were driven by their belief.


      Tal, maybe you mean " ARE CHIRCH and SCIENCE mutually exclusive?"
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: I heard Newton believed in alchemy and that Jesus was just a man, not divine.

        He also didn't know there is more than one galaxy, or DNA etc.

        Glad this didn't stop him doing some great work.

        I suggest some of his supernatural beliefs do clash with science,.

        it's not all or nothing.
      • thumb
        Mar 13 2014: I'm a bit confused. Are you saying churches and other religious organisations have nothing to do with religion.

        isn't human religiosity and the organisations they set up to teach and conduct religious ceremonies part and parcel of religion?
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2014: Obey - Religion CANNOT EXIST on its own - it is all about people who create it, use it or abuse it. The terminology is also created by people. God did not create Religion with its institutions.

          Even in our postmodern time all religeous "teaching" has some non-thinking followers.

          But Church is not deadly for learned people these days - but we have something similar in manipulative nature, that is taking over many minds our lifestyle, knowledge and mentality. It's called "popular sciences and technology" that have turned new lab discoveries that no one yet understands - into mass production. .
  • Apr 6 2014: Dear Carl Dalton,

    TED comment threads are a welcoming place for critical comment and debate, but we ask that you write all comments in a way that is thoughtful and constructive. The goal of our message boards is to host productive conversation and debate. Comments that are insulting or belittling, especially those that are aggressive towards a speaker personally, do not make for constructive conversation -- they tend to stifle debate, not promote it.

    It seems that I have been flagged 3 times in regard to the comments I made "in response to Entropy Driven's constant abusive remarks, attempts to belittle, and literally trying to ram his vehemently atheistic view down my throat.

    Entropy Driven 20+
    • 0

    • Reply
    15 hours ago: Puff, Terrible with the whole of math poor deluded guy. I gave him many ways to notice his mistake with Pi, and now he goes for the hypotenuse. This guy does not know his limits. He's the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

    Entropy Driven 20+
    • 0

    • Reply
    3 days ago: Hey Rodrigo,

    I doubt that gravity is driven by entropy, or that such idea has taken hold at all. So I would not go categorically there if I were you.

    As per Carl "theories," you're too kind to call them that. In my experience he has little to no idea, and when there's some idea it is the wrong idea. It is still good to exercise the intellect because he can make quite interesting convolutions with those misunderstandings.

    Well we will see; Last Thursday I managed to a new web page up inclusive of diagrams title "From The Circle To The Sphere" and I have placed a direct link to it in my profile.

    I have also dedicated the last section to Entropy Driven, flagged 3 times, seems he likes to dish it out but cannot take it himself.

    Please note this is only a small part of my work, and prior to starting the idea conversation in regard to gravity, I will revise and place a deal of this in place for referencing.

    Cheers Carl
  • Apr 4 2014: "Strictly lireral religions" and science are (pretty much always) mutually exclusive. (depends somewhat on the religion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously real and some of the other newer religions are not specific enough on scientific topics to be excluding science.)
    Science can however show that the timelines in the old testament are rediculous. Evolution is true. Noah's flood is very unlikely. (etc.)

    Religious interpretations and science are often somewhat mutually exclusive. (they often only differ on small parts)

    Spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive.



    The thing is that science can never prove that there is no God. Science can only show (at it's maximum) that physics can explain the existence of the universe and of humans without having the need for a God.
    The reason for that is that God has/had the power to control everything. Therefor any measurement done by any scientist can be directly influenced by God.
    This argument itself is quite rediculous but it's why science can't ever prove God to be false.

    Ofcourse the more recent "science" of psychology might someday explain why people came up with the concept of a God. But it still can't show that there is no God, because of the above reason.


    The main problem that the scientific community has with many 'religious people' !! Is not that they are religious but that they consider their religious book to contain facts which they themselves don't have to question/check.
    I mean if God himself first said "let there be light" and there was light. Then why question what light is? Where it comes from? What it does? etc.
    Killing people is in generally a bad thing, but what if God tells you to?
    If the pope sais that condoms only aid to the problems of sexually transmitted diseases then why wear a condom???

    Theres a thin line somewhere between what "religion teaches" and what "religious people say" and "what you yourself believe" and what can be described as "virtuous behaviour".
  • Apr 3 2014: Religion and science canNOT be just as mutually exclusive, as our spirit and our body are not (in this world).

    One is the cause, the other the effect.

    Science can build us the best and most useful house possible, but only love can make it a home.

    Being useful is based on our spirit, how is determined by science.
  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

  • Apr 2 2014: Entropy Driven

    Let me make this quite clear; in regard to your non and your deliberate misinterpretations in regard to my posts, and relative to the post wherein you stated I had insisted, that you use the word faith rather than belief, which was a deliberate lie; and all my posts can be checked confirming this.

    Quite simply based upon these factors and the contents of your posts to myself and others; I do not like your character which I personally find obnoxious.

    As to my own posts they are not designed or aimed at persons like you, whose opinions in my own opinion I consider to be totally worthless, as they appear to me to be no more than childish smart-ass remarks, consisting of useless entropy driven hot air; escaping from a closed and ignorant mind, via the means of an orifice, which is obviously at the wrong end of the anatomy.

    In sum get lost
    • Apr 2 2014: Sorry Carl, but if you're going to post uneducated math on something like TED, or uninformed opinions about science and religion, then you risk having at least one person telling you so. I truly find it astounding that it's seemingly impossible to show you the errors that you indulge on, which makes you fascinating. Still, you get thumbs up for those glaring mistakes, which means that I might be making a good service to those who might be mislead by your mathematical mistakes unless they see a refutation.

      If you think that my corrections come out of the wrong orifice, maybe you should check where your "math" is coming from. When you do, be careful with the fumes. They are flammable.
  • Apr 2 2014: No I am not

    The area of the square on the hypotenuse is 289 squares; 17 being the square root and an odd number

    The area of the two squares on the other two sides is 288 squares 12 being the square root of each, and an even number

    17 being an odd number = odd amount of area

    12 + 12 being two even numbers = an even amount of area

    Ergo; the area of the square on the hypotenuse, does not equate to the total area of the two squares, on the other two sides.

    Have you got it now?

    And if you went back to that conversation, you would have found that I provided five methods for finding the exact area of a circle, and all five including the Sumerian method gave exactly the same answer.

    And my major detractor gave the 12 steps to the sphere the thumbs up; which is based upon the correct 3-1 ratio

    Ah but if your a physicist, perhaps you will call it a coincidence.

    The simplest method I came up with only recently, radius x 180 degrees = the area of the circle.... But! it only seems to work relative to a 12 x 12 square; so I have to do some more thinking re this method.

    AS to believing it when you see, perhaps you wont as TED seems to be taking a long time in regard to publishing the conversation; so I am wondering if they are going to or not; and if not why not, because if they don't it amounts to being suppression of knowledge, and censorship.
    • Apr 2 2014: You're wrong. An isosceles triangle with two sides being 12 inches, and one side being 17 inches would not give you a right triangle. You rounded up the longer side to 17 and thereby your mistake. But obviously if you round up you get approximate, rather than precise, results. That does not invalidate Pythagoras. It just shows that rounding would not help you understanding the theorem.
    • Apr 2 2014: If any readers are interested:

      There's some awesome proofs of the pythagorean theorem online. I find the geometrical ones most compelling, but the algebraic ones are beautiful too. One geometric example is:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVo6szYE13Y

      Replay the last part and pause it so that you can see what happened. It's truly enlightening and will make you appreciate math even if you did not like it before.

      (And yes, science and religions conflict. Sorry to break these news to you.)
      • Apr 6 2014: Dear Carl Dalton,

        TED comment threads are a welcoming place for critical comment and debate, but we ask that you write all comments in a way that is thoughtful and constructive. The goal of our message boards is to host productive conversation and debate. Comments that are insulting or belittling, especially those that are aggressive towards a speaker personally, do not make for constructive conversation -- they tend to stifle debate, not promote it.

        It seems that I have been flagged 3 times in regard to the comments I made "in response to Entropy Driven's constant abusive remarks, attempts to belittle, and literally trying to ram his vehemently atheistic view down my throat.

        Entropy Driven 20+
        • 0

        • Reply
        15 hours ago: Puff, Terrible with the whole of math poor deluded guy. I gave him many ways to notice his mistake with Pi, and now he goes for the hypotenuse. This guy does not know his limits. He's the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

        Entropy Driven 20+
        • 0

        • Reply
        3 days ago: Hey Rodrigo,

        I doubt that gravity is driven by entropy, or that such idea has taken hold at all. So I would not go categorically there if I were you.

        As per Carl "theories," you're too kind to call them that. In my experience he has little to no idea, and when there's some idea it is the wrong idea. It is still good to exercise the intellect because he can make quite interesting convolutions with those misunderstandings.

        Well we will see; Last Thursday I managed to a new web page up inclusive of diagrams title "From The Circle To The Sphere" and I have placed a direct link to it in my profile.

        I have also dedicated the last section to Entropy Driven, flagged 3 times, seems he likes to dish it out but cannot take it himself.

        Please note this is only a small part of my work, and prior to starting the idea conversation in regard to gravity, I will revise and place a deal of this in place for referencing.

        Cheers Carl
  • Apr 2 2014: Your welcome, if my next conversation is accepted by TED (Taking a while) I will not be bullshitting and will explain why things that go up, do come down via facts (Laws of physics) and logical progression.
    • Apr 2 2014: I will believe it when I see it! You are good with history but terrible with Pythagoras!
      • Apr 2 2014: Puff, Terrible with the whole of math poor deluded guy. I gave him many ways to notice his mistake with Pi, and now he goes for the hypotenuse. This guy does not know his limits. He's the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
        • Apr 2 2014: While we are on the subjects of Carl, gravity and you, gravity is driven by entropy and I look forward to demolishing both you and Carl's theories on it if his next conversation comes up...
      • Apr 2 2014: Hey Rodrigo,

        I doubt that gravity is driven by entropy, or that such idea has taken hold at all. So I would not go categorically there if I were you.

        As per Carl "theories," you're too kind to call them that. In my experience he has little to no idea, and when there's some idea it is the wrong idea. It is still good to exercise the intellect because he can make quite interesting convolutions with those misunderstandings.

        That's it from me on this regard because the conversation here is about conflicts between religion and science.

        Best!
      • Apr 6 2014: Dear Carl Dalton,

        TED comment threads are a welcoming place for critical comment and debate, but we ask that you write all comments in a way that is thoughtful and constructive. The goal of our message boards is to host productive conversation and debate. Comments that are insulting or belittling, especially those that are aggressive towards a speaker personally, do not make for constructive conversation -- they tend to stifle debate, not promote it.

        It seems that I have been flagged 3 times in regard to the comments I made "in response to Entropy Driven's constant abusive remarks, attempts to belittle, and literally trying to ram his vehemently atheistic view down my throat.

        Entropy Driven 20+
        • 0

        • Reply
        15 hours ago: Puff, Terrible with the whole of math poor deluded guy. I gave him many ways to notice his mistake with Pi, and now he goes for the hypotenuse. This guy does not know his limits. He's the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

        Entropy Driven 20+
        • 0

        • Reply
        3 days ago: Hey Rodrigo,

        I doubt that gravity is driven by entropy, or that such idea has taken hold at all. So I would not go categorically there if I were you.

        As per Carl "theories," you're too kind to call them that. In my experience he has little to no idea, and when there's some idea it is the wrong idea. It is still good to exercise the intellect because he can make quite interesting convolutions with those misunderstandings.

        Well we will see; Last Thursday I managed to a new web page up inclusive of diagrams title "From The Circle To The Sphere" and I have placed a direct link to it in my profile.

        I have also dedicated the last section to Entropy Driven, flagged 3 times, seems he likes to dish it out but cannot take it himself.

        Please note this is only a small part of my work, and prior to starting the idea conversation in regard to gravity, I will revise and place a deal of this in place for referencing.

        Cheers Carl
  • Apr 1 2014: oops sorry; very early in the morning, have noted I have put both posts in this same conversation
  • Apr 1 2014: Hi Vera

    Have just posted a reply in the conversation Are Religions and Science Mutually Exclusive, which may be of interest; problem is with my experiences, and eclectic perceptions in regard to the continuing and increasing evils at all levels of humanity; I do tend to, and indeed each day the little faith I have in humanity grows less and less.

    I see the decent honest and hard working of society sandwiched between organized crime, and organized Criminal Corporations and their crooked politicians, and possibly even more low life corporate lawyers. "Interesting isn't it" that e.g. the Nazi leaders and other have been tried and punished for crimes against humanity; and yet Corporation constantly get away with mass murder by proxy; e,g an estimated 56, 000 000 were killed in WWII, 6 million in the death camps;

    And yet e.g. the Cigarette Companies who have bastardized the harmless tobacco leaf, with hundreds of carcinogenic chemicals and carcinogenic plastic fiber filters, that also release these when heated, murder agonizingly and horrendously by proxy 6 million each year; and when they gave their list of those chemicals to the USA investigation (about 9 or 10 years ago I think) they tactically left out the chemical additive salt petre, which is used to make fuse paper for fireworks, in order to keep the cigarettes burning and "burning faster" to increase their profits.

    And these lying murdering by proxy low lives, have recently announced that they are going to produce cigarettes that go out; when in reality they know that naturally made cigarettes and cigars do go out, if you do not keep on drawing air through them; .

    Six million a year murdered by stealth in order ti line their pockets, and millions more each year dying horrendously in fires that these incendiary devices have caused. Ah well I have faith in the Creator, and I am sure I will see them and their bought Politicians in Hell "but I will only be visiting, and I will be taking my pipe with me"
    • Apr 1 2014: So we won't be getting a simple yes or no to "Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?" But what is your most simple answer? Is it "don't get me started!"?
  • Apr 1 2014: You would need to look at some of my previous posts in other conversations and there is quite a few of them, and I cannot seem to access them all, as you used to be able to until TED changed the page.

    No I have not been misrepresenting myself, and I hope I am not coming across as too much in favor of one than the other; especially as I am also "anti both" in regard to the the vile human, animal, environmental abuses that have been carried out in their names, and are still being

    Look at the invasive, violent, vile history of christianity/capitalism; of how it has been guilty of both creating the impoverished third world, and the genocide of some of the proud North American Indian; "Land of the Brave" that is until the "White Man Man Speak With Forked Tongue Arrived ". And irony! the white made tobacco pouches out of women's breasts, and mens scrotums; scalped indians for their long hair to export to britain to use as wigs on children's dolls.

    Without their superior long range cowards weapon, rifle and gun, these savages would not have stood a chance against the more civilized (They settled conflicts mainly with Pow Wows) and "Brave" Indian Tribes

    Then look at the sciences Mustard and Phosgene Gas WW1, Hiroshima, Nagasaki WW11, Chemical & Biological agents Vietnam, Nuclear Fuel Rods Iraq etc etc etc.

    And; we then have to swallow layers of bovine excrement, that Hollywood and the Media Moguls feed us and use to excuse their "Incorporated- Interneting Capitalistic Crimes"; just as the Christians have been doing over the last 2 millennia.

    However: When we look at the more ethical, humanitarian, environmental aspects of the sciences, truly inspiring in many ways, look to the international aspect of the religions trying to find common ground, so there is some hope.

    As to the Christian Religion; I have found Biblical connections to Ancient Egypt and the Godess "IS'IS = I AM) Nostradamvus etc

    Mysteries beyond science

    I am anti and pro both = looking for truth
  • Mar 31 2014: Rodrigo Capucho Paulo

    Had a scroll down to my own and previous posts, there is an excellent one from Dan F 2 days ago:

    Re your post

    Raymond Cavallaro +1Reply
    Mar 20 2014: Still didn get

    what is the cause and what is the effect in that post?

    i still not seen the science nor relevance

    Perhaps you see where I am going in regard to cause and effects and connections relative to consequences; everything is relative; if you try to read history in a linear fashion its not history, because it is an infinitesimal fraction of all the things going on, and surrounding and causing these events to occur at the time. Using an overview aspect, you may miss out on a lot of facts to impress people with; but you pick up some major factors that you can connect to other important factors relative to a bigger picture of events.

    Take my post of the first page of the Book of Jasher; how does this relate to the modern sciences and also the media of todays modern world.

    The Book of Jasher which was written by the Rod Bearer of Moses and Aaron, and was the precursor to the book of Genesis, and just look at the vast difference to what was said in the original as opposed to what was added in on top of it later, and these additions have had the most tremendous and horrendous effects on the world events over the last three millennia: And the same is occurring in the media and the sciences today. Everyones got a story or a theory, and when these are accepted as being genuine and published, they serve to change the environment and the future of our reality.

    And the sciences are especially guilty, as they used to be solely empirically orientated, but now they consist of layer upon layers of theories based upon previous assumptions, rather than the solid foundations of the empirical laws of physics. And I have just submitted a conversation relative to this; which once again is likely to draw a lot of flack from the theorists.
    • Apr 1 2014: Have you been misrepresenting yourself on Science v Religion? Have you been trying to say that Science is just as bad as Religion but coming across as anti-Science pro-Religion? Whatever, anyway, so Science is just as bad as Religion but now what, where does that overview take us?
  • Mar 31 2014: All things are relative to each other, and so the initial answer is yes and no

    The Christian religion was started by the Romans (Jesus taught "The Way") because as the old saying goes if you cant beat them join them; so the Roman school/world bully (as with the bully in school threatening you for your lunch money) under Constantine, decided to join them, and continue the capitalist/privatizing of common wealth philosophy from within; which is why it was/is called the "Roman Universal Church" rather than the "Roman Universal Empire".

    And so you cannot really separate the two, because the politics of both are so deeply intertwined, and the sciences are deeply intertwined with both, being reliant on either government public money and/or corporate work and sponsorships etc.

    So no the "organism" of Capitalism cannot be defeated in this way; however evolution and progress are not about winning and defeating; the organism that survives, is the one that is most adaptive to its changing environment, and in natures evolutionary process, we see how to aid survival bacteria work with each other, animal organisms adapt to work plant life and so on.

    And so it is not a matter of one against the other, but rather "The Religions" working together to play a more spiritually - morally - ethical role relative to, instilling these values into the Capitalistic system whereby industry, commercialism, manufacturing, recycling, retailing, media become focussed on the well being of the planet and natural systems, relative to both the survival of humanity and other species; relative to improving human conditions at all levels; and time is rapidly running out, as it is not what the sciences have taken into consideration relative to climate change, that is the kicker, but all that they have not taken into account that is the major kicker (Thats another topic but critically relative).

    have posted other comments in this conversation, will look at some of my others ones for you
  • Mar 31 2014: Oxford English Dictionary.

    The word fascist comes from the fasces which was bundle of rods with an axe projecting from it. Carried by a Roman officer accompanying a magistrate as a sign of the magistrates absolute authority.

    And essentially fascism is the basis of capitalism, invasion, oppression and stealing the land and its commonwealth (Minerals forestry etc). Today this crime is called privatization, whereby politicians for kickbacks in the form of post political consultancy positions; sell off cheaply the tax payers/peoples property to their Corporate and big business mates; and these crooks ironically call them selves Right Honorable, as they lie to get elected, and then sell out the very people/public they claim to serve, and my thought has always been which is worse a politician or a quisling.
    • Mar 31 2014: Could Science and Religion mutually combine to defeat Capitalism? Or are they mutually exclusive? I haven't been following this one so if you have already posted it all then a simple yes/no or even date-of-posting will do, please.
  • Mar 30 2014: No problem

    History is always written from the victors standpoint, and their propagandizing to excuse and cover up the truth of their crimes; the Carthaginians used barter for trading and their trading fleets encompassed the entire Mediterranean Ocean; prior to their error in marking each component of their ships with numbers, so they could be easily prefabricated and put together. So of course the Romans after capturing one, were able to copy them and build up a massive fleet in secret to defeat them.

    Following the conquest of Carthage, and no doubt at the behest of their Greek merchant allies they made the Carthaginians pay for the cost of the Roman war against them, and introduced interest on top,around then coinage was introduced (I am no expert or historian, but read between the lines and pick out the hidden essentials to obtain an overview; the reason being, that most of the verbiage is designed to bog you down in the false history, rather than reveal the truth; and we just do not live long enough, to be able to plow through all of the crap, theories and lies that have been written into so many subjects).

    From my overview, and although I do not know the time line of events as such, I am of the opinion that the Romans were originally pirates "privateers" and criminals living in one spot/badlands, perhaps the original site of Rome; and the Greek merchants paid them as mercenaries to attack their trading opposition the Carthaginian traders and their fleets.

    Subsequently the mercenaries grew stronger and more organized, until they became the military authority of the alliance; their reward; the Greeks invented the mythology of Romulus and Remus, and a lineage of false Kings to give the legitimacy as a supposed not real race of people.

    And the same "fascistic - OED fasces" capitalistic regime of invasion, and stealing the commonwealth of the people, has continued, under the guises of religion, racism, economic corruption of Monarchs-Dictators-Politicians.
  • Mar 29 2014: Should the Constitution of the USA attempt to derive authority from God? Do the non-believers care? Do the believers care? If both camps care, could they agree to disagree? Or maybe the open-minded be open-minded enough about the closed-minded? Should the word "god" stay in? It's an American Constitutional Crisis!
  • Mar 23 2014: Are open-mindedness and closed-mindedness mutually exclusive?
  • Mar 20 2014: Raymond Cavallaro

    So thats two conversations, where you just don't get it

    Can't help you
    • Mar 20 2014: Is there Someone, is there any one who understand his post?

      One thing is who dont understand
      Other is you not being reasonable or just pointless

      Use reply to maintain the conversation togheter, posting a new comment may pass un-aware for the person you are responding unless you dont wanna the person to see the response
      • Mar 21 2014: If you mean those posts that talk about the book of whomever, and the book of whatever, then no. Not understandable at all. Not on topic either. Those posts only make me feel dizzy.
  • Mar 20 2014: Raymond Cavallaro

    Religion and Science, and the relativity's/cause and effects that exist between the two relative to acceptances, and and exclusions; is the nature of the conversation/ or rather the debate.

    If you have a problem with this, I suggest you join another conversation, more suitable to your liking.
    • Mar 20 2014: Still didn get

      what is the cause and what is the effect in that post?

      i still not seen the science nor relevance
  • Mar 20 2014: 20th March

    Excerpt from The words of Alcuin

    After this I had free access to The Book of Jasher. The first thing which commanded my attention was a little scroll, entitled The Story of the Volume of Jasher. This informed me, that Jasher was born in Goshen, in the land of Egypt, that he was the son of the mighty Caleb, who was the General of the Hebrews, while Moses was with Jethro in Midian; that on the embassy of the Pharaoh, Jasher was appointed verger to Moses and Aaron, to bear the rod before them; that as he always accompanied Moses, that Jasher must have had the greatest opportunities, of knowing the facts he hath recorded; that from his great attachment to truth and uprightness; he early received his name; that it was a common saying of, Behold the upright man; that Jasher wrote the volume that bears his name; that the ark was made in his life-time that he put the volume therein with his own hands; that Jazer the eldest son of jasher, kept it during his life-time; that the princes of Judah were successively custoes thereof; that the ark and the book in the last Babylonish Captivity was taken from the Jews, and so fell into the hands of the Persian monarchs.

    Clearly in this original work, it states in the process of time, an evolutionary period of the life forms, rather than 6 days of creation. The misogynistic garden of eden mythology of Genesis is also entirely absent, to the point;

    No mention is made of any females whatsoever, as only the paternal lineage is given, as would have been the custom of those times.

    And the word Man; is used in the context of being both, a male and female inclusive word.

    Therefore the original sin does not lie with the female lineage, and that of the "Pro-cess" of natural "Pro-creation"; but rather the misogynistic nature, of subsequent male editors.
    • Mar 20 2014: Carl Dalton,

      This post should be in other topic, not here

      This floods the forum and we may not be able to discuss because of those posts
      Flood makes the forum less readable, less organized and less pleasant

      So please do this posts in another topic and with a point for discution
  • Mar 19 2014: Hi Eugene

    Just had a quick scan of Unitarian Universalism in Wikipedia, I think this is far better view than that of the dogma of religions in general.

    For me personally however, I do not believe in any god as such. My reasoning being, that the Creator/Ultimate Intelligence/Universal Psyche does not need infinitesimal me, to get down on bended knee to worship he she or it (I believe She, but that’s too long to go into); no more so, than I believe that any person should require others to do so. I simply have the greatest of respect for the Creator.

    And as to those who claim that the same god, is on each of their opposing sides, I really don’t think so; nor when others claim they are fighting to defend the name of god, as neither a god or the Creator; needs we infinitesimal creatures, living on an infinitesimal grain of sand, within the infinite and eternal Cosmos, to defend he she or it.
  • Mar 19 2014: Atheism is not a rejection of belief because it believes that there is no divine being just like Unitarian Universalism believes in the seven principles and this definition faith does not have to have a unifying belief in principles just like in other theistic religions where the gods are not important but what they represent is also even if those principles are based on science
    • Mar 20 2014: Atheism is, for most atheists anyway, a rejection of the belief in the divine. Not a belief that there's no divine being. The difference is in that it is not an affirmation: "there's no gods," but a "prove it" stance. It's a "since there's no evidence for gods I don't accept such proposition" thing.

      As per myself: actively atheist: not only I do not believe in gods, I'm not just rejecting the proposal, I know that gods are all imaginary.

      On the debate issue: Science and religion have deep conflicts. They conflict at the very core.
  • Mar 19 2014: That maybe true but atheism is a religion that is based on belief in humanity and reason because they believe in no divine beings so would you agree that more radical faiths will try to hold on to misconceptions they had
    • Mar 19 2014: Atheism is not a religion

      My father was a staunch atheist all his life, and not one iota in the sense of the word religious; until on his death bed and death was dawning, and then his doubts became apparent; and I have personally witnessed this sudden change of heart at this time, many times.

      You have the right to believe atheism is religion if you wish, either way an atheist with a good heart is worth, any number of religious hypocrites, or violent fanatics, or miscreant atheists.

      As to divine beings, I have not mentioned any such beings, no more so than demons and devils etc.

      I know the Universe is the Ultimate intelligence, based upon logic reason and experiences, but more so, one so utterly impossible event that took place; which confirmed for me that the Universe/Creator has the ultimate power to do anything.

      As to the more radical faiths holding onto their misconceptions; once a belief is entrenched, there is little that can be done to change it, so yes I think they will.

      But then who knows what the future holds for us, as at this time the greedy corporations, share, and money markets are driving us beyond natures sustainability, but thats another topic.

      Cheers Carl
  • Mar 18 2014: The Sacred Book of Jasher - The Upright Man first chapter continued


    20. And Seth begat Enos; then began men by name to call on the Lord.
    21. And all the days of the life of Adam, there was rest and peace, and quiet, unto all men.
    22. For they listened to all things, concerning which he spake unto them.
    23. And Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

    Refer to St Alcuin - Wikipedia, etc: Excerpt from The words of Alcuin

    After this I had free access to The Book of Jasher. The first thing which commanded my attention was a little scroll, entitled The Story of the Volume of Jasher. This informed me, that Jasher was born in Goshen, in the land of Egypt, that he was the son of the mighty Caleb, who was the General of the Hebrews, while Moses was with Jethro in Midian; that on the embassy of the Pharaoh, Jasher was appointed verger to Moses and Aaron, to bear the rod before them; that as he always accompanied Moses, that Jasher must have had the greatest opportunities, of knowing the facts he hath recorded; that from his great attachment to truth and uprightness; he early received his name; that it was a common saying of, Behold the upright man; that Jasher wrote the volume that bears his name; that the ark was made in his life-time that he put the volume therein with his own hands; that Jazer the eldest son of jasher, kept it during his life-time; that the princes of Judah were successively custoes thereof; that the ark and the book in the last Babylonish Captivity was taken from the Jews, and so fell into the hands of the Persian monarchs.

    Clearly in this original work, it states in the process of time, an evolutionary period of the life forms, rather than 6 days of creation. The misogynistic garden of eden mythology of Genesis is also entirely absent, to the point;

    No mention is made of any females whatsoever, as only the paternal lineage is given, as would have been the custom of those times.

    And Man; is used as being a female inclusive word
  • Mar 18 2014: Evidence pertinent to the Debate.

    The Sacred Book of Jasher - The Upright Man

    Translated from the Hebrew by; Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of Britain (735-804), Abbot of Canterbury

    Canonised Saint Alcuin of York

    Typed directly from the actual first page of the book

    Chapter 1

    The Formation of the World, and Creation of Man

    1. Whilst it was the beginning, darkness overspread the face of nature.
    2. And the ether moved upon the face of chaos.
    3. And it came to pass, that a great light shone forth from the firmament, and lightened the abyss.
    4. And the abyss fled before the face of light, and divided between the light and the darkness.
    5. So that the face of nature was formed a second time.
    6. And behold there appeared in the firmament two great lights; the one to rule the light, the other to rule the darkness.
    7. And the ground brought forth grass; the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree after his kind.
    8. And every beast after his kind, and everything that creepeth after their kind.
    9. And the waters brought forth the moving creatures after their kind.
    10. And the ether brought forth every winged fowl of his kind.
    11. And when all these things were fulfilled, behold Jehovah appeared in Eden, and created man, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
    12. And to him was given power and lordship over all living creatures, and every herb, and over every tree of the field.
    13. And it came to pass in process of time, that the man begat Cain, and he also begat his brother Abel.
    14. And Cain was the first man to till the ground.
    15. And Abel was a feeder of sheep.
    16. And Cain went out and dwelt in the east of Eden, in the land of Nod.
    17. And Cain begat Enoch; then did men begin to build cities.
    18. And unto Lamech was born Jabel; he was the first who taught men to build tents.
    19. And unto Lamech was born Tubal-Cain; he was the first who wrought in brass and iron, and builded up the harp and the organ.
  • Mar 18 2014: Now let's take a look at science and religion both but not through the eyes of organised orthodox religion but through a more atheistic view where it is not based on a divine being but reason and the scientific method also to believe in humanity and no to god or gods. My view is the science and religion are one and the same at their fondations
  • Mar 17 2014: Here's another one. This one may be easier so i added a third quote.

    "It is believed by most that time passes; in actual fact, it stays where it is. The idea of passing may be called time, but it is an incorrect idea, for since one sees it onlyas passing, one cannot understand that it stays just where it is."

    "Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen...in the Absolute there is neither time, space, nor causation. "

    "There we reach the great barrier of thought because we begin to struggle with the concepts of time and space before they existed un terms of our everyday experience. I feel as though i've suddenly driven into a great fog barrier where the familiar world has disappeared."
    • Mar 18 2014: Imagine you are totally naked, unlearned, and floating in an outer space, and all you can see all around you is a diffuse light.

      What are you? you think therefore you are, I am

      Where are you? you are nowhere, because you are unlearned, and there are no landmarks

      What time is? you are no when, because being both naked, and unlearned, you do not possess a watch or a calender, or the ability to understand them if you did.

      And all that I am, is an infinitesimal part of what was, an infinitesimal part of what is, and an infinitesimal part of what is to come
      • Mar 18 2014: I would also be dead as I cant hold my breath for very long ha ha
        • Mar 18 2014: Genuinely not directed at anyone in particular (well perhaps politicians)

          There are also those among us who are breathing too much, and yet are very dead from the neck up.
  • Mar 17 2014: I know this debate has been mainly focused on christianity but I thought I'd mix it up and stir the pot a bit. Below are two quotes one by a buddhist and one by a noted physicist, can you tell which is which. Bonus points for naming who the quote is from.

    "The world thus appears as a complicated tissue of events, in which connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and thereby determine the texture of the whole."

    "Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves."
    • Mar 17 2014: I guessed well, but will not share so others can try and figure it out.

      Christianity? I was trying to go wide and far in my anti-religious stance! :-(

      (Though there's a few flavours of Buddhism that don't involve that much mysticism and superstition.)
      • Mar 17 2014: Though there may be many Buddhist s that take these things literally, I have been impressed by the similarities between modern theories and. Buddhist and Taoist teachings.
      • Mar 18 2014: Does the fact that Rudolph Clausius enrolled in a seminary make you want to change your name? Or that Josiah Gibbs was a linguist and theologian who served as professor of sacred literature at Yale Divinity School from 1824 until his death in 1861. how about Maxwell attending both Church of Scotland (his father's denomination) and Episcopalian (his mother's denomination) services as a child, Maxwell later underwent anevangelical conversion in April 1853, which committed him to anantipositivist position. Planck declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God." These were some od the main developers of entropy.
        • Mar 21 2014: I have said already that many manage to live with both, and explained how religion and science are still conflicting. We as humans manage to live with contradictions and oftentimes without noticing those contradictions. As anti-religious as I am, science is science, and whatever motivations and beliefs from whomever produced some scientific insight, I don't mind at all. I would only mind if they rejected any piece of data that conflicted with their religious beliefs when doing science though.

          Also note that Planck would have been using he word "religious" is a different sense. A rhetorical or poetical one at that. Even then not believing in a personal god is but a few steps from atheism.
      • Mar 18 2014: By the way, the obscure quotes that I took out of context were from. "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism" by the physicist Fritjof Capra.
    • Mar 17 2014: These are quotes are interesting but so short and modest that they may be used somewhat interchangeably. I would guess just by the words being used (considering the Buddhist quote is likely translated) that the first one is the physicist. This religion does make very odd claims about divinity and afterlife however, todays' Dalai Lama (14th) said "if science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change" ..this being said, he still reserves the right to consider himself holy.
      • Mar 17 2014: That they can be used interchangeably is what strikes me, that and the fact that one of the people lived(ca. 150–250 CE) and one in the twentieth century. One was a Buddhist and the other was a physicist and....drumroll...was raised and lived as a LutheranChristian, publishing and giving several talks reconciling science with his faith.[140] ha ha.sorry this one was a trick question.
        • Mar 18 2014: Yet, it should not strike you that much. Quotes out of their proper context, especially kind of obscure quotes, lend themselves to be interpreted any way you want. It's like reading a horoscope and crying about how accurate it is, oblivious to our psychological involvement on making something too generic look very particular because we unconsciously filled in the blanks.
    • Mar 18 2014: I think perhaps the first may be by Einstein?

      And a slight twist on both: No man - cell - atom or particle is an island unto itself, and no island is an island unto itself.

      Oops: Sorry missed your post of 45 minutes ago with the answer
      • Mar 18 2014: The first one was Heisenberg and the second one was Nagarjuna. Thanks for playing!
  • Mar 17 2014: Hi
    Let me tell you of an experience I had in 1966; a long time ago. I have two sons and their ages at the time were 4 and 6 yrs old. My wife and I + children lived in a two bedroom accommodation. Both my sons slept in the room at the back of the house. When it came time for my wife and I to retire the children had been in bed for about a hour.
    We climbed the stairs and went to listen at our children's bedroom door,.This was out of character for we had always gone in to look before. All seemed quiet so we made our way to our room. Just as we were to turn out the light we heard both our children getting out of bed. In fun we covered our heads with the bed sheet and pretended we were asleep. My children could be heard entering our room and making their way to our bed. There was no mistaking that they were my children their giggling was unmistakable.
    The two of us sat up in bed saying 'boo.' Imagine our shock to discover the room was empty. It was goose pimple time! When I made my way to my children's bedroom they were fast asleep, not a hair of their head had moved. Any explanations? The right answer could define the answer to the question posed by this debate.
    • Mar 17 2014: Sure. Kids can be so lively, can be such happiness in a home, that we still can hear echoes of their presence even when they are sleep.

      I doubt that such thing could define the answer to the question in this debate though.
      • Mar 17 2014: Hello Entropy
        Many friends far and wide gave answers that boarded on the supernatural. I must admit this was not my conclusion. Please give it a try, see what you come up with; it could be the reality that explains the whole. It was this incident that started me researching places I would have never guessed existed and I am not talking supernatural. There I have given you a clue. I am serious and would like to gather as many opinions as possible. I would like to compare them with my findings.
        Thanks for your reply.
    • Mar 17 2014: Thanks for your input. All I can say in these situations is that I don't know. Some may quickly rationalize events spiritually, some psychologically; I prefer to remain neutral until there is a reason why one explanation would appeal more.
      • Mar 18 2014: Hello Tai Kapaji
        I understand your view and it is a wise person that admits their reluctance to venture into the unknown. I have been researching the subconscious for over 40 yrs and have come to my conclusions only after much deliberation. Regarding your debate; the answer you seek can only be answered with the tearing up of the most superficial evidences that science and religion seem to saturate themselves with. The experience that I describe-when we get the right answers will do this. There has to be an answer if there is a problem- one justifies the other. If the debate goes on long enough I will pass on my findings. Meanwhile why not become an Agatha Christie detective and see what conclusions you can come too?
      • Mar 18 2014: Hello Tai
        There doesn't appear any takers to my challenge so I will try to explain your question using the incident that happened to my wife and I.
        When the two 'spirits' of my sons decided to walk that night I decided to find some reason behind it.
        Going against all the supernatural nonsense that was being banded around I decide to go in another direction. My first thought was, why did both of my sons decide at the same time to do the same thing. They were fast asleep at the time so there must have been a connection between the two while they were sleepiing. I then suddenly realised that the subconscious works 24/7 never stopping. 16hrs absorbing our emotions and 8hrs kind of playing them back. this made more questions. If the sub; works 24/7 then the incident could have come from me or my wife. expand on that and it means we are all connected in the sub; After more research I formed the idea that evolution was by design. (That's another debate.) Getting back to this one; Richard Dawkins wrote a book 'The Blind Watchmaker.'
        In it he describes how random evolution works by using a computerized anomaly that cannot match the complexity of evolution. Yet he still believes what he believes and I can't blame him; he has not experienced what I have. What I am trying to say is; there is something missing from this debate and those are the words non-exclusive. The exclusive are in a time warp where time doesn't seem to exist and no changes come forth, left to them the world would still be flat and the Moon made of cheese It's the non-exclusive that ride on the shoulders of giants and go forward regardless of adversary.
        The answer to your question is that both stalwarts of society have their own internal differences, it is not just with each other and it is only with the non-exclusive that change will come.
        Thank you for this debate, it has been most interesting.
  • Mar 17 2014: Hi Colleen

    Again you misread: I did not say the context of what I said has been lost and buried, I am ensuring that its not.

    It is very easy for each and all of us, to replace a word such as e.g belief with the word faith without realizing, however it changes the context of what has been said; and when another word is changed by the next person based on the previous change of context, the original context starts to become lost and buried.

    If you are not getting the basic meaning of what I am trying to convey via the means of logic; which at its simplest is that the Universe (Or Multiverses) is the Ultimate Intelligence and Creator, well as with you others also may not, but also others may.

    As to being argumentative, ""this is a debate!"" in regard to a most, if not the most of controversial of subjects; and in regard to the subject matter Religion and Science; the former has caused millions of deaths, and horrendous and untold amounts of inhuman suffering, in the wars and attempted genocides over the last 2 millennia; and the latter has provided the means by which these, can be achieved far more quickly and far more efficiently.

    Therefore given that voice intonation, and body language which help to convey and attenuate or emphasize what is being said in a conversation, are absent, context of meaning is of very great importance.
  • Mar 17 2014: Concerning my post of 4 days ago IMO

    Please note; I used the word "Belief" in the original text, of IMO re religions and science, not the word "Faith":

    Belief is an acceptance of something, and that the something is true; Faith is the complete acceptance, and complete trust in something, and that the something is true, to the point of being a conviction. Which is why I said IMO/in my opinion = personal opinion/conviction, and given the controversial nature of the subject, added "which I am entitled to hold".

    No one is required to agree with or accept a single word I say, and my belief is that the Creator gave us our minds not to be conditioned, but rather to question everything in our personal searches towards understanding the Creator, via the means of understanding the Universal creation processes of our realities.

    Some may have similar opinions, and for others it may be a new trend of thought. If however some choose rather than allow me to freely share my opinions with others, and choose to attack my personal convictions, it is my legitimate right to defend them; especially when those attacks contain, insults and abuse, and attempts to change the original context and words of what was said; e.g. from belief to faith.
    • Mar 17 2014: But curiously not only you did not protest when I used the word "faith." You instead insisted on it. So now you are back-pedalling on redefinitions. Yet, your redefinitions are still useless because you compared creationism and science in terms of being "beliefs" without foundations (take a look at what you said Carl, the context is very clear), which is among the most common definitions of "faith." Therefore you were still promoting the idea that science goes around making claims out of those sacred-be-the-sphincters.

      You have your entitlements to hold whatever opinions you prefer to have. I will never challenge that. But just as much I am entitled to protest if you insult reader's intelligences by claiming that scientific work is about proposing things without evidence.

      Finally, how could you be honouring your "belief" that "the Creator gave us our minds not to be conditioned, but rather to question everything in our personal searches towards understanding the Creator," if you can't allow yourself to grow and admit error when you make one? How can anybody be searching for understanding if all they want to do is hold an opinion based on either abject ignorance or mere rhetoric?
  • Mar 17 2014: Colleen, I was being polite

    You changed the words "I think perhaps to "Believe" totally different, and you think I should simply roll over and accept this without correcting it?

    Perhaps you would benefit, by not altering the connotation and meaning of what has been said
    ..........

    Quote: That is funny because it appears that you like to think you are correcting people quite often!!!

    That is your perception; however as it is your perception and it is within a forum, it therefore follows that it will be the perception of more persons; therefore I will take it to heart, and give it a great deal of more thought.

    As to the Topic question: It is black and white, and universally applied to all of the religions and all of the sciences; therefore I do not think there is a black and white answer, but rather that it is a useful, but a very controversial tool for debating the relativity's between the two.

    Personal view is that I wish, that both the Religions and the Sciences would take a mutual and comradely/benign, and less skeptical/exclusive view of each other; while maintaining a comradely/benign devils advocacy approach, towards formulating more questions and answers as questions answered always provide further questions.

    In my life I have had experiences, that according to science, my logic, rationality, reasoning, pragmatism; were totally impossible; and only one of these the most powerful experience, was shared by another, confirming what I would have otherwise written of as a mental aberration, and thought no more about it.

    I have questions that I have found satisfactory answers to (Have my conviction), and each answer raises many more seemingly unanswerable question; and perhaps/I am fairly sure, that within the thoughts of others lie some of those answers I am looking for.

    However in this regard baseless assumptions, misconceptions, and suppositions they have no value; while others theories/"ideas" on that basis, are well worth while considering.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2014: Carl,
      I did not change anything. I asked a question in an attempt to understand your comment. You apparently do not like questions, and you have an interesting idea of "polite" Carl.

      I wholeheartedly agree...assumptions, misconceptions and suppositions have no value, which is another reason I ask questions...to try to clarify, understand your perceptions, and add some value to a conversation.
      • Mar 17 2014: Hi Colleen your post

        2 days ago: Carl,

        The question is..."Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?"

        I agree....for some people science and religion work together without creating a dilemma for them.....perhaps you could read some of my other comments....

        Do you have anything to substantiate your ::::belief:::: that "they see the sciences as one of many means of obtaining a greater understanding of the Creators great works"? You are speaking for all scientists who also choose to believe in a religion?

        Copied and pasted

        However hurriedly for now, the question states Religions plural and all inclusively, and Science singularly and all inclusively; but as we know many great scientists have been of a religious background, and their scientific pursuits do not seem to have created a dilemma for them; and ::::I think 'perhaps":::: because they see the sciences as one of many means, of obtaining a greater understanding of the Creators great works.

        I think perhaps, is not the same as believe.

        It is very easy for each and all of us, to replace a word such as e.g belief with the word faith without realizing, however it changes the context of what has been said; and when another word is changed by the next person based on the previous change of context, the original context starts to become lost and buried.

        I also erred in my last post in regard to the two words opinion and conviction; and in my original IMO post perhaps I should have written instead, according to my convictions. The reason being that my opinions are not written in stone, but my convictions which took years and decades to arrive at are.

        However writing according to my convictions as an opening really does sound as if I am up myself, and off putting in regard to a debate.

        One thing I should and do apologize for, is saying hurriedly for now in my reply; stupidly not thinking, I was torn between my enthusiasm to reply, and a rush to get things done before going out, not being dismissive; sorry.
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Carl,
          For what it's worth, you seem to want to be argumentative, and I'm not interested in that kind of dialogue.

          I do not observe that the context of what you have written has been changed or "lost and buried" as you say. If anything, your thoughts, feelings, perceptions, perspectives, ideas and beliefs may be "lost" in your own long communications. That is why I continue to ask questions.....trying to discover the main idea you wish to convey.
      • Mar 17 2014: Hello Colleen and Carl. The question you are engaged in discussing is a complex one with a complex answer. I don't want to engage in your dispute but maybe I can be of some help to defuse it. I have said in my previous letter that we are a partly rational species. How would we know hate, without knowing love? How would we know the thrill of achievement without knowing the frustration of failure. These negative and positive emotions compliment each other. As individuals we experience both these emotions, but in the greater scheme of things they are all positive emotions. Being able to differ makes us the intelligent species that we are. Though religious people mean well, they seem to ignore this basic fact, they call it good and evil and this is the reason that religion can never accomplish that which it seeks-mainly peace and goodwill to all. I am not saying that we have to live this way, what I am saying is; it's only by understanding a problem will you ever be able to do something about it.
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Hello Derek,
          Complex questions and answers can be discussed successfully with respect and I have no dispute. I have expressed my thoughts and feelings on the topic, and I respect the fact that others have their own personal beliefs as well.

          I agree that as humans we experience all emotions, and I believe that emotions are emotions....neither positive or negative. It is our perception of the emotions which may cause a feeling of positivity or negativity.....those are labels, we give emotions as individuals.

          I wholeheartedly agree....it is only by understanding a challenge that we are able to change the dynamic.
  • Mar 17 2014: I was/am both pleased and stunned by your post, which said so much of what I am trying to convey, and I think perhaps "Very" poorly.

    Most sincerely Carl
  • Mar 16 2014: Entropy Driven

    And please don't come back with the point that the expansion from the centre of the BB, would obviously cause a radiant expansion between Albinoni and the Earth, thus increasing the light year distance between them; because then we would have to consider the distance between the two as an hypothetical circumferential length, expanding over a period of 18 billion years, during a time when the Earth did not even exist; mind boggling and not interested.

    Carl
    • Mar 16 2014: Carl,

      If you're not interested then stop it. Then don't bring it to the discussion. I gave you the simplest of explanations, but there's other things to consider that solve your paradox (which is more a problem with your knowledge than a real paradox). If you're interested then astrophysicists would be able to better explain these things to you than I am anyway. Also, what matters is that you are bringing science into the forum that you previously dismissed as being just faith, so I don't see much of a point for either of us to make here. Suppose that you were right in this point and somehow this supernova proved the BB to be wrong. That would mean that the BB is wrong, but it would not mean that it was proposed by faith. It would not take away all the phenomena that lead scientists to propose the BB. Do you understand this at all?

      Best,
      E.D.
  • Mar 16 2014: Entropy Driven

    Quote: Very nice Carl. So why didn't you follow your own advice? Why do you feel this need to crush my ego and thus inflate yours? Seems, like you make it a point to contradict yourself when you post these bits of wisdom.

    Had I wished to crush your ego my language would have been far more venomous rather than considerate, in my response to your assumptions, accusations, aggression, and abuse; and it was in response to your attempt to crush my ego, therefore perfectly legitimate; but as with all bullies you do not like a taste of your own medicine.

    Quote: To make things simple, suppose that we see the light of a star apparently 10 billion years away from us

    Now suppose that the Universe has expanded 5 billion light years since then

    That would mean that the star is today 15 billion years away from us.

    Do you get it now Carl? Yes, you had a few omissions and assumption there. Sorry.

    Sorry to have to inform you, I have read similar before;

    So I will make it as simple as I can for you

    The Earth is not the centre of the known Universe; and neither is or was Albinoni;

    If the hypothetical BB took place; it would be the centre of the Universe; and the expansion of the known Universe would be relative to to its original spatial location.

    Therefore and certainly considering your abuse I am not your dear close friend; the radius, diameter, and the circumference of the Universe remain pertinent.

    Also what has to be factored into the account; even if only using the sum of the 18 billion year radius

    Is that we are looking towards the light of the Albinoni supernova 18 billion light years (years) away from us but also 18 billion years back in time.

    Therefore it follows that we are unable to see it as it was "Previously" when it existed as a Star; or observe its prior period of evolution in/from its primal dust cloud, or the prior evolution of that dust cloud.

    18 billion +++ how many billion years

    So, why not just learn and live on?

    Carl
    • Mar 16 2014: Carl,

      I'm truly sorry if every time I make a comment I hurt your ego. Not my intention, but when you write to me you display ignorance and you direct it at me. So what do you expect? That I should respect such displays?

      Your little attempt here at saving face about one of your mistakes in cosmology does not take away your other mistakes. It does not take away either that you now you know that the BB is not about faith, but about evidence(s) and calculations, as you are being quite good at demonstrating. Nor does it take away all those contradictory remarks you have made..

      Anyway, to your "point." That we could see a star and calculate that it is farther today than it was when the light we see left the star does not need the Earth or the star to be the centre of the Universe. All that matters is their positions relative to each other. Try making some drawings in a piece of paper and you might get it.

      About that diameter, that the light we see on one side has reached us does not mean that it has also reached objects we see on the other side. I hope this becomes obvious enough for you now. Of course, the circumference could not play any role either Carl. What matters in the apparent paradox you were brining to the discussion, is the relative positions of whatever object and us. Therefore only the radius relative to us would matter. Make a few drawings and you might be able to get it.

      I don't have space here to explain every aspect of cosmology that I'm aware of. This is a forum about the conflicts between religion and science. If you want to know more about the size of the Universe, it's rate of expansion, and how the universe can be larger in light years than it's age, please learn some geometry, calculus (it helps understand how to calculate the size of the Universe given it's expansion rate and age), and consult some astrophysicists.

      Best,
      E.D.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2014: Hi Entropy:>)
        I agree that this discussion is about conflicts between religion and science...as you say....or....."Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?".....as the topic question asks.

        I realize that you are MUCH more scientifically minded than I am, so I don't even want to go there!!!

        That being said, do you think that how one accepts and uses information makes a difference in his/her perception of conflicts between science and religion?

        For example, I know lots of people who believe in both religion and science. They accept science as a method which explores information, proves theories, etc. And they accept holy books and what is often taught by religions for what they are....written by humans as a reflection of what was happening at the time they were written, and dogma that was created by humans. I think there is a place for that in our world....just as there is a place for good novels.

        If people accept everything in a good novel or a history book as fact, it certainly would color their perception of science? One can go on and on forever with facts that science has produced, and it makes no difference, because it may feel to those who have certain beliefs like a horrible conflict. Yes? No? Maybe?
        • Mar 16 2014: Hi Coleen!

          Yes. I think that the way we accept and use information makes a difference in our perceptions of conflicts between science and religion. I also know lots of people who accept both and do not seem too worried about it.

          Anyway, somewhere before I was writing about the many ways in which those I know and others I have read and heard accept these two things in different ways and levels. This clearly makes your point. Each perceives those conflicts differently. Some keep both things very separate. Some don't think too deeply about what they are suppose to believe given their religions, long etc.

          Of course I agree with you and religions are part of our cultural heritage. They can contain great wisdom, unfortunately often mixed with great mistakes. But our cultural heritage they remain. Sure too. there's a place for religion. Only I expect people to be able to grow up when necessary. To be able to reason when their religions conflict with the well being of others.

          It's nice talking with you Coleen.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2014: Thanks Entropy...nice talking with you too:>)
        Perhaps some of us are not worried about it because we understand and accept the fact that different people have different beliefs?

        You "expect people to be able to grow up when necessary"? Good luck with that expectation! When/if people are so attached to their beliefs as the one and only "truth", discussion of any kind becomes challenging. Many people identify with their beliefs so closely, that it may feel horrible to them when anyone even asks a question or presents a different idea. So, they plant their heels in the sand and the challenge is on!

        That is my concern as well....that some beliefs impact the well being of others.....as I wrote a couple days ago in this conversation....I see that as the biggest conflict....

        "Colleen Steen
        2 days ago: Tai and Obey,
        This is the challenge I see with some religions and fundamentalists.....the need to "trespass" and adversely impact other people who do not share the same beliefs.

        I believe that science and religion co-exist except with some people who cannot or will not understand or accept the fact that some folks have different thoughts feelings and beliefs."
        • Mar 17 2014: Hey Coleen,

          Agreed that I'm asking way too much from people. Especially given loads of experience. historical and direct. I should have said, "I would like to see people grow up ..."

          In any event. I am still confident that there's a true conflict between religion and science. I agreed that the way people perceive things might allow them to live with both, they can coexist. But I would disagree in it meaning that there's no real conflict. The day a Christian who accepts evolution and our very old universe confronts the whole Christian doctrine and realizes that without Adam's sin there's nothing to be saved from by Jesus, some conflicts should become a tad more evident. Things like that.

          Of course, people can invent quite plastic and hyper-plastic gods. Just look at New-Agie movements out there. All the gods are real, and none is real. "God" is everything, "God" is the force, etc, etc, etc. Those could become less "conflicting" with science, except that when you hear these people it becomes evident that they fill their lives with such unreasonable mysticism that it becomes very conflicting with science. So they take from science the big-sounding words, but despise scientific endeavour otherwise. At any rate, some invent gods that are impermeable and untouchable by science and reason. They become emotional gods. But what is left truly about those religions other than having noticed that religions and science have such conflicts that the religions rather take refuge behind curtains of mysticism, obfuscation, and/or the realm of the untestable?

          (I hope that last sentence was understandable.)

          Best,
          -E,D,
      • thumb
        Mar 17 2014: Hey Entropy,
        I agree....discussing anything in a mature manner is always preferable!

        I understand and accept that you perceive a conflict between religion and science. I perceive that the conflict resides with the person who tries to push his/her beliefs onto others, and/or tries to deny scientific information in schools. I believe everyone has a right to believe and practice whatever s/he chooses....AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT ADVERSLY IMPACT OTHERS.

        I think most of the challenge arises when religious fundamentalists try to impose their personal beliefs on others.

        I can live with both, because I am not a scientist and I do not practice a religion. I am not in favor of people adversely impacting other people with their personal religious beliefs. Some Christians accept evolution....it is the fundamentalists, extremists that do not accept it....is it not? As you suggest....some do this and some do that.....

        I think I understand your last sentence....people sometimes hide behind something they cannot explain? If one had a logical, reasonable explanation, it might burst their bubble?
  • Mar 16 2014: 16/03/14 Entropy Driven assumptions, accusations, aggression, abuse (2)

    The Age of the Universe is said to be between 13•5 and 15 billion years old since the BB took place; I don’t thinks so

    Published Media reference; The Age Newspaper (Melbourne Australia) Saturday 19th of December 1999 Quote

    Today astronomers announced that they had observed the oldest supernova to date this exploding “Star” called Albinoni being some “18 billion light years away”. A “light year” being the distance that light travels in “a year” about 9•5 Trillion kilometres.

    So we could say that the Universe is 18 billion years old, rather than 15 billion; however this is a single radius of direction, therefore the “known Universe” has a diameter of 36 billion years, and its circumference is 108 billion years long.


    Quote: It is arrogant to write your opinion with such sense of authority when you lack the most basic understanding about science.

    My convictions are based upon a foundation of facts/truths, not omissions, assumptions, or theory.

    Therefore what you sense is the authority of words of truth; and if you wish to term the strength of my convictions as expressed in the words of my opinion; as to being arrogant, that is your problem relative to truth, and not mine.

    Intelligence

    To believe that you are too intelligent to be led astray is the very first step towards being led astray.

    Intelligence

    If you are prone to, or you feel the need to crush the ego of another in order to bolster your own ego, and your own sense of self-esteem; that is due to the weakness of your own character, not theirs.

    Fundamental Ethic:

    Respect and treat all living things; as you would expect all living things to respect and treat you, and stop to consider that you cannot and never will fully know the life and the motives of another person, because you have never, and can never, walk a mile in their shoes.

    Cheers Carl
    • Mar 16 2014: My very dear friend Carl,

      Of course you took into account that a star could be 18 billion light years away and the Universe still be 13.5 billion years old if we correct for the expansion of the Universe, right? Let me explain, if we see a star 6 billion years away from us, that means that this star must now be much farther from us today than it was when the light we see left such star. Do you get it?

      To make things simple, suppose that we see the light of a star apparently 10 billion years away from us. Now suppose that the Universe has expanded 5 billion light years since then. That would mean that the star is today 15 billion years away from us. Do you get it now Carl? Yes, you had a few omissions and assumption there. Sorry.

      "To believe that you are too intelligent to be led astray is the very first step towards being led astray."

      I agree completely. This is why I keep my uninformed opinions to myself, or else, I state openly that my opinion is not well informed. This way somebody might feel inclined to correct me if I'm wrong and I'll learn something.

      "If you are prone to, or you feel the need to crush the ego of another in order to bolster your own ego, and your own sense of self-esteem; that is due to the weakness of your own character, not theirs."

      Very nice Carl. So why didn't you follow your own advice? Why do you feel this need to crush my ego and thus inflate yours? Seems, like you make it a point to contradict yourself when you post these bits of wisdom.

      Please let's leave it there. I didn't want to crush your ego. If I did I apologize. I just pointed to the fact that your opinion was uninformed. No harm meant. So, why not just learn and live on?

      Best,
      E.D.
  • Mar 16 2014: 16/03/14 Entropy Driven assumptions, accusations, aggression, abuse (1)

    Quote. It does not help if your opinion is based on ignoring the basis of such scientific proposals (such as the BB theory)

    Refer to Enc Brit “Theorem”:

    Refer to OED: An assumption is not an axiom (Self-evident truth)

    However in science; an initial assumption followed by a series of assumptions, based on the initial assumption; is then re-named as being a series of axioms;

    And when followed by a second series of assumptions, based on and supporting the first series of assumptions, the first series of assumptions is then considered to be proved, and re-named Theorem.

    Despite the fact; that the initial assumption did not possess, any empirical/scientific value whatsoever.

    BB Theory

    Refer to Wikipedia History of the BB Theory

    Regardless as to all of that history; Lemaitre’s version (disservice) is commonly known and accepted as being the God Particle Theory, whereby a super dense particle appeared abracadabra, out of no place/where, no time/when, no energy/Universe = no-thingness.

    Despite the fact that the laws of physics state

    1. Energy may be converted but it cannot be created or destroyed (It follows, that the energy of the Universe is indestructible, as it is converted ad infinitum.

    2. There must be an input of energy, for there to be an output of energy.

    • The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    aether.lbl.gov/www/science/cmb.html‎

    The CMB is a ubiquitous and thus directionless ocean of radiation that exists throughout the Universe that has been “assumed” to be, a relic of the evolution of the early Universe.

    Why because it has been assumed that there has to be a beginning and ending to “The Universe” rather than, that Big Bangs are common throughout the infinite and eternal Universe; and our part – our known universe, “as with other parts of the unknown Universe”, is a result of the evolutionary process, that takes place after a Big Bang has occurred.

    Continued
    • Mar 16 2014: Carl my dear friend,

      I don't know if I should be flattered that you took a little while to read, rather shallowly, something about the BB, and supernovae, and background radiation to pretend that you knew what you were talking about, while it was clear, and it is further clear now, that you didn't and you don't.. I wonder more than anything how you manage to contradict yourself without even blinking.

      So, please explain to me how could you say that the BB is based on faith and then tell me that scientists have "missed" that there's actually many many BBs? Do you have many more faiths despite you say that your "opinions" and based on "facts/truths"?

      Talking about your many found "faiths," you wouldn't know by any chance about that hypothesis about a multiverse, would you? But, if you buy that, why would you contradict your facts and truths by calling the BB mere faith?

      Oh, and the cosmic background radiation is something that confirms the BB, but not the only thing that scientists have. You have other of your factoids wrong, but no need to go there. Again, nice try at pretending to know. The more you try, the more you will find that the BB was not based on mere faith, but on evidence. Therefore the more you reveal that your former "opinion" was neither an opinion, nor a conviction, but perhaps an argumentum ad rhetoricum, as much of what you write seems to be.

      continued too, of course ...
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2014: Pope Francis, who took his name from the saint seen as the patron of the animals and the environment, is writing an encyclical on man's relationship with nature - the Vatican said
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2014: "Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. "
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm
    Adam & Eve might not be such stretch for science after all if we are indeed all related to one female.

    On a similar note. Science used to believe that the universe was eternal. Since the advent of Big Bang cosmology it has become apparent that the Universe is indeed finite. This also is, & always has been the biblical view.

    It is impossible to prove a negative; evolutionists rely heavily on this fact with regard to abiogenesis & evolution of one type of creature into another. Therefore, in the same way, when it comes to miracles, it is impossible to prove one way or another.

    There are other instances; Junk DNA , & supposedly redundant body parts, spring to mind; where science is evolving in the direction of the biblical standpoint. The relationship between the two is fluid; certainly not mutually exclusive.
    Science should really be completely objective, but for better or worse, scientists are human beings, & likely to have a belief system which inevitably colours their judgement. I wouldn't have it any other way.

    :-)
  • Mar 15 2014: No question of disagreement

    IMO. All energy (metaphysical and physical) is infinitely and eternally relative to all energy without disconnection, within (For Want Of Another Word) its infinite and eternal interactive holism (FWOAW)

    Cheers Carl
  • Mar 14 2014: Hello, I really like the debate you are suggesting. I will begin my response with a short answer, they most certainly not.

    Things are and they can only be and in their being they are regardless of our opinion. With this I mean to say that there is a truth, you may have one opinion and I may have the same or a different, now the truth may be what one of us believes or yet different to whatever either of us thought.

    Some people believe that there is a god, some people believe that there is no god; there is a truth in answer to this question and it will remain regardless of either opinion. If God does exist, will still do regardless of the opinion of those who believe that does not (and viceversa).

    Science relates to the scientific method which requires an empirical proof, from this perspective you can deny the existence of something you cannot find an empirical proof of. No scientist would assume then that it is impossible the existence of what cannot sense as there are always limits to what we can find and experience, technological progress have allowed us to proof wrong the conclusions of previous scientists.

    The main issue is that science is in constant search and it should question itself as well, religion requires faith, scientists rely on pieces of information on which they put faith such as physical law, i.e. gravity. Then again, scientists should question everything they know, even these laws.

    This means that a religious person would have a difficulty as a scientist although every other human being would too. This does not mean that science itself is against religion, science itself is a concept, it does not have feelings and by its definition is neither the antonymous of religion (that would be atheism), science is the intellectual search of truth and we must be open to whichever outcome even if it means proving our hypothesis wrong.
  • Mar 14 2014: Hi Colleen

    I have been using the red font reply option in each case when replying within the main conversation, and generally do so, however in regard to this reply and others, I have used the TED respond to email link. Perhaps I should only reply from within the main conversation if there appears to be a problem?

    My apologies if I gave the impression that I thought you were unaware of the topic of the conversation, that certainly was not intentional, but probably as I was tired poorly put.

    I will get back to you in regard to your question, as an hour seems to pass in five minutes when on a computer, and your question deserves better than a rushed answer; and I have to go out soon so I will return to it as soon as I can.

    However hurriedly for now, the question states Religions plural and all inclusively, and Science singularly and all inclusively; but as we know many great scientists have been of a religious background, and their scientific pursuits do not seem to have created a dilemma for them; and I think 'perhaps" because they see the sciences as one of many means, of obtaining a greater understanding of the Creators great works. .
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2014: Carl,
      The question is..."Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?"

      I agree....for some people science and religion work together without creating a dilemma for them.....perhaps you could read some of my other comments....

      Do you have anything to substantiate your belief that "they see the sciences as one of many means of obtaining a greater understanding of the Creators great works"? You are speaking for all scientists who also choose to believe in a religion?
      • Mar 17 2014: Hi Colleen

        Sorry to have to correct you.

        However hurriedly for now, the question states Religions plural and all inclusively, and Science singularly and all inclusively; but as we know many great scientists have been of a religious background, and their scientific pursuits do not seem to have created a dilemma for them; :::::::: "and I think 'perhaps" :::::::: because they see the sciences as one of many means, of obtaining a greater understanding of the Creators great works.

        "I think perhaps" I did not use the word believe; all scientists and all theologists are individuals. Perhaps I should have said, I assume/presume that a percentage of them see their work as a means of working towards a greater understanding of creation and the Creator/Intelligent Universe; what percentage? no idea.

        And I certainly could not, nor would I presume or possess the arrogance, to speak for any one these individuals; let alone the vast spans of the religions and the sciences..

        For a better answer, please refer to Vera Nova; post of four hours ago

        Carl
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: Carl,
          You say you are sorry to have to correct me??? That is funny because it appears that you like to think you are correcting people quite often!!!

          The topic question is EXACTLY as I stated above...."Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?"

          Yes....I agree....perhaps you could have said that you are assuming/presuming something rather than trying to speak for a whole group of people.

          I have read all the comments in this conversation, including Vera Nova's comments. Perhaps you might benefit from the same practice.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2014: Religion and Science in one pill is hard to swallow. Religion and Spirituality in one may be easier.
  • Mar 14 2014: Hi Colleen

    Thats the debate and not for me alone to answer, however my view is that although they once were, they have been drawing closer together over the centuries.

    And please note that if you send a reply, you will not get an immediate reply from me, as it early morning and I have to get some sleep

    Cheers Carl
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2014: Ok Carl....sleep well.....sweet dreams:>)

      Are you aware that you can reply directly to a comment with the "reply" option in the upper right of the comment you are replying to? It helps keep a conversation in sequence, and those you reply to get a notice.

      I realize what the topic of this debate is, and that's why I asked the question. I have read your extensive comments, and am not sure of where you stand on the topic question.
  • Mar 14 2014: Hi ColIeen

    Universe - Ultimate Intelligence - Supreme Sentience - Universe - Mother Nature - God, I consider all to be names that can be used relative to the one and the same Metaphysical Holism (eternity and infinity) of the Universe; that is empirically the Creator, of literally everything there is.

    And this is inclusive of all our religions and sciences, as we and subsequently they, all originate from the original source which is the Universe that created us all.

    Cheers Carl
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2014: So Carl, what do you think/feel about the topic question...."Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?"
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2014: SCIENCE IS MISSING MORALS AND ETHICS. RELIGION CANNOT FIND TRUE MORALS AND IS MISSING LOGICAL THINKING OVER EXPERIENCE.

    Whether science, or religion, takes over our minds and life, it brings devastating disasters...

    We have not found any feild yet where we would be able to learn about our own unique human nature, and our internal abilities to understand ourselves.
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2014: I agree Vera, that when something takes over our lives to the exclusion of anything else, it might not be so beneficial. That being said, I believe religion and science can co-exist....in fact....they DO co-exist with quite a few people.

      To understand ourselves, I think it is important to consider all information, and the practice that prevents this exploration, is often listening to and believing other people rather than doing the exploration in our self. Unfortunately, religions and religious leaders often do not encourage people to explore in themselves, in favor of simply believing what they are told by the religious leaders. People cannot explore the life adventure while being led like sheep according to dogma which controls people.

      Perhaps the learning "field" is life itself:>)
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2014: I agree, Colleen, that it is natural to engage in such integration in ones life. As life is interdisciplinary, with few important questions drawing on only one "field," people draw on many perspectives naturally rather than adhering only to one, a narrow practice that is typically only a caricature of others.

        There is no single path and likely no single best understanding to be reached though there will be many seeking and promoting a perspective/approach that they believe to be the single valid one. It is in human nature to look for answers and a common trait then to promote ones own answer to others. It is well meant, typically.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2014: I agree Fritzie, that people often draw on many perspectives rather than adhering only to one, and that feels natural to me.

          I am with you regarding the belief that there is no single path and there are many seeking and promoting their own perceptions and beliefs, believing them to be the one and only.

          I agree that it may often be well meant, however, it is not unrealistic to seriously question the intent. We could say that the crusaders had good intent? We could say that suicide bombers have good intent? How do we interpret "intent"?

          We could say that those who protest teaching of evolution in schools have good intent? I personally don't think the examples I present have or had good intent because these actions deprive people of the freedom to make informed choices for themselves. It is controlling.

          Protesting the teaching of evolution is how some religious folks exclude science and try to adversely impact other people.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2014: I am not saying intent is all that matters. I am saying only that some people genuinely believe their discovery/theory/personal research (or how they have come to put together the pieces based on their selection of the information at hand) is uniquely promising/true/authentic. It isn't only an ego thing or wanting to control (though that is sometimes there) but sometimes they genuinely believe their perspective would improve other people's quality of life immeasurably.

        Whether it would is quite a separate matter.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2014: Agree Fritzie...."whether it would is quite a separate matter"!!!

          And there lies one of the challenges when we are discussing possible exclusivity with science and religion.

          You say...." It isn't only an ego thing or wanting to control (though that is sometimes there) but sometimes they genuinely believe their perspective would improve other people's quality of life immeasurably."

          When it becomes an issue of one person deciding s/he can improve another person's life if ONLY they accept his/her beliefs, I suggest it IS an ego issue and an attempt to control others. If a person genuinely had good intent, s/he might encourage others to make their own informed choices, rather than trying to deny them information and/or control by force.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2014: I agree. Most of the "selling" in contemporary life is not about force but about rather incessant pushing and marketing.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2014: True Fritzie,
          My belief is not that the practice of religions and science are mutually exclusive, but rather, people who believe it has to be one OR the other are exclusive.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2014: Colleen, you made my day :)

        Our Life is our ultimate school.

        How much shall we learn ?.. endlessly. Well, at least some basic ethics would not hurt anyone.
        We live in the age of uncontrolable manipulations of all sorts, industrial, political, food, healthcare, medications and horrific "treatments", poor education based on sound bytes called :knowledge" and "sciences", loud brainless "entertainment" and media..

        However, sometimes, we meet beautiful souls, intuitive learners, who bring to our life practical solutions to overwhelming problems, and new to us knowledge. When we meet one another in search for better knowledge and understanding - think together - this is a blessing time.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2014: It is your thinking, you so simply expressed in your post:

        'Unfortunately, religions and religious leaders often do not encourage people to explore in themselves, in favor of simply believing what they are told by the religious leaders. People cannot explore the life adventure while being led like sheep according to dogma which controls people.

        Perhaps the learning "field" is life itself:>)"

        GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU AND THANKS FOR NOTICING MY COMMENT.
    • Mar 14 2014: I agree as well, science does not provide ethnics. But ethics come from our ability to empathize with others, our ability to do this is far greater (I suspect) than other animals. Although signs of emotion and decision making are evident in many animals, I suspect humans have a greater capacity because of our complex social interactions and cognitive ability.

      The five forms of ethics I have studied were classified formally during ancient times of philosophy. Those that I have talked to have argued religious institutions provide a necessary reflection on our behavior but I think this can be done without religion.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2014: Yes and NO, Tai. This has been proven throughout history and especially by recent research that animals can reveal overwhelming feelings towards one another and towards chosen by them humans. Animals can volunteerly rescue you as the best human friend.

        "If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men." (Kant, LE, 240)


        No animal can be so ultimately, senslessily cruel as men, enjoying others' bloody suffering just for the sake of some "idea" or "purpose" or even "duty"...

        Human intelligence is ultimately questionable, in whole, and in particular cases - it is not based on deep intuition, the most profound nature's "motor" of sensations that all animals possess. We have been building our intelligence and thinking believing our very shallow experience, evidence of "facts", our description of "things" and events depending on our corporeal eyes - the most superficial and deceiving "instrument" provided by our sense-perceptions. We judge and measure everything based on our sight, even when augmented by super microscopes and telescopes we cannot see anything but only appearances!

        While learning from animals in wilderness without disturbing and manipulating them, we might improve our poor morals after all..

        In recent years some of the law-autorities have begun to question ethics in sciences - it is practically an endless work but it's encouraging that eventually - those lab scientists have to be responsible, some day, and answer basic as well as very specific scientific questions regarding the "importance" of their research, cruel to children and animals manipulated by researchers in labs
        • Mar 14 2014: (My name is Tai by the way)
          Vera, I said that we have a greater *capacity* to empathize, I did not say that we are always kind. Of course any animal can be violent, human or not. Just as we have unique ability to display cruelty (such as torture) we also have a unique ability to empathize.

          The complex social interactions of humans have a wide range of emotions. I hold (although nothing can be "proven") that empathy is vital for the survival of all social creatures such as ourselves, since our existence is dependant on our interactions with others. Alligators for example, have less ability to empathize than lions. This is not directly related to the topic but I have a special interest in this particular field of science.

          Also, the way science experiments are conducted can be very cruel indeed but did you mean that this behavior belongs to science? Maybe that's not what you meant?
    • Mar 15 2014: Adhyatam is an Indian Equivalent of spirituality.The word Adhyatam is derived from two words Adyayan + Atam . Adhayan means Study and Atam means soul,self,spirit. Soul,Self, and spirit not only means the soul,self and spirit of the person but also the higher soul,higher self, and higher spirit.

      Adyatam is the study of soul,self or spirit.

      This is the field where we learn about our own unique human nature, and our internal abilities to understand ourselves.

      This has nothing to do with any religion.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2014: Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith.
    -------
    "The Goal of Science is understanding lawful relations among natural phenomena.
    Religion is a way of life within a larger framework of meaning."
    (Ian Barbour, "Religion and Science," pg. 204)
    -------
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein) "
    ........

    “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
    ― Richard Feynman
    .........
  • Mar 14 2014: My purpose in creating this topic is to get a better understanding of viewpoints. I live in the "bible belt" of America and sometimes feel I am the only person who holds certain views. I appreciate those who voice their opinions but I am not here to argue. I have spent enough time in past discussions to conclude that it just isn't the best use of my time.
  • Mar 14 2014: Entropy Driven

    Knowledge

    If I consider the amount of knowledge I have; it equates to that of a self-addressed envelope as compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

    If I then consider the amount of knowledge contained in Britannica, it equates to the size of a missive as compared to the Universe;

    And the sum of the knowledge that I do not possess, is the sum which remains within the infinite and eternal abyss, of my own ignorance.

    And given all of the politics, religions, wars, and all the self-serving words of mankind; the one thing that remains true and absolute;

    Is that I can only place my faith and my trust in the Universe/Creator, myself and my dog.

    And certainly not in your opinions, and your beliefs, “which you are entitled to hold”

    But which your are certainly not entitled to compound with insults, in order to try to ram them down others’ throats, as a means of coercing them into giving up their own opinions, and their beliefs, in favour of the ignorance of your own.

    Attainment of Wisdom:

    To be highly educated is to become steeped in the opinions, beliefs and theorems of others.

    To become highly learned is to never add or lend ones weight to any object, situation, enterprise or philosophy; without first having tried tested and analyzed its potential for harm or for growth.

    Grow up
    • Mar 14 2014: As entitled as you are to your opinion, it does not help if your opinion is based on ignoring the basis of such scientific proposals as the Big Bang theory.

      As humble as you might want to appear by comparing your knowledge to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the Universe, it does not help if you write an opinion that betrays that it is based on your deep ignorance about the basis for scientific proposals such as the Big Bang theory.

      It is arrogant to write your opinion with such sense of authority when you lack the most basic understanding about science.

      Distrust as much as you want. But describing the Big Bang as a matter of faith, because you don't rust "self-serving" words, is still ignorant. It means that either you don't trust yourself to figure out how a scientific theory is proposed and/or gains acceptance, or you trust yourself too much when your opinions are uninformed or misinformed.

      I loved this one: "To become highly learned is to never add or lend ones weight to any object, situation, enterprise or philosophy; without first having tried tested and analyzed its potential for harm or for growth."

      So I have to ask: why do you add or lend your weight to calling the Big Bang theory an article of faith without first having tested and analyzed its scientific foundations?

      Follow your own advice and grow up.
  • Mar 13 2014: 14th March: Intelligent Design (2)

    During the time it has taken, from when the most infinitesimal and elementary sparks of life first developed, and then proceeded to grow and evolve into the biosphere and the world as we know it today.

    All that we are; inclusive of all our senses, our emotions, our intelligence, our imaginations, our opinions, our beliefs, our dreams, our sciences, our learning, "All stem from one source, and "that is" The Universe".
  • Mar 13 2014: Post revised 14th March: Intelligent Design (1)

    Certain features of the Universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an "undirected process such as natural selection".

    1. The phrase "undirected process of natural selection" is nonsense a contradiction in terms, "select" means choose; for anything to be chosen, there must be an intelligent selection process; in the same manner as with the choices made during the development of so called artificial intelligence; no intelligence, no choices, no creativity, no artificial intelligence.

    2. Unlike the few decades taken to develop artificial intelligence, it has taken evolution billions of years to reach our levels of intelligence; involving mega to the infinite number of choices, as to what should or not be retained, relative to an organism’s adaption, and survival in ever changing environments.

    Therefore to believe that all is coincidence and evolution no more than a mindless undirected process of “randomness” is illogical.

    When one compares the amount of intelligence that mankind has invested, in the sciences of geometry, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering that has gone into the construction of our modern world;

    Against the amount of intelligence that the Universe/Creator has invested, in the sciences of geometry, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering processes that has gone into the blueprints and construction of a living cell;

    The sum of all human intelligence pales into insignificance.

    And in order to gain some infinitesimally small insight, into the vast degree of that over - riding Universal Intelligence, one only need look back to the time of the primal Earth;

    And then consider in overview, all (the number) of the astronomical - mathematical - geological - elemental - geometric - chemical - biological - physiological, evolutionary events/decisions, that must have taken place;
    • Mar 14 2014: Carl,

      I truly detest these "arguments at rhetoricum."

      Depending on how we define our terms, we can say that natural selection is an undirected process if we define "directed" as being performed by an intelligent being. On the other hand, I describe it always as semi-directed because I don;t regard "direction" as implying intelligence, and because the environment, and the historical contingencies of living forms give the process some direction. But these can only work on what the process of mutagenesis will produce, thus not being completely directed. So, we can talk about direction without necessarily meaning "intelligent-based" direction.

      Language has its limitations to the point that some linguists have gone as far as thinking that most of it is metaphorical. In that regard, Darwin was being metaphorical because he came up with the "natural selection" name by comparing the idea to that of "artificial selection" that goes on in breeding domestic animals and plants. The word "selection" was not meant to denote intelligence, but rather a natural process, as the name suggests.

      So the "contradiction" you present is mere rhetorical play that puts an intelligence where no intelligence has been demonstrated. Direction does not mean intelligence, and the opposite to intelligence is not abject randomness. Intelligence can produce chaos, just as non-intelligent processes can produce organization. We see that all the time. So please, stop the rhetoric and think about your assumptions. They seem rather wrong and unreasoned.
      • Mar 14 2014: Entropy Driven

        Knowledge

        If I consider the amount of knowledge I have; it equates to that of a self-addressed envelope as compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

        If I then consider the amount of knowledge contained in Britannica, it equates to the size of a missive as compared to the Universe;

        And the sum of the knowledge that I do not possess, is the sum which remains within the infinite and eternal abyss, of my own ignorance.

        And given all of the politics, religions, wars, and all the self-serving words of mankind; the one thing that remains true and absolute;

        Is that I can only place my faith and my trust in the Universe/Creator, myself and my dog.

        And certainly not in your opinions, and your beliefs, “which you are entitled to hold”

        But which your are certainly not entitled to compound with insults, in order to try to ram them down others’ throats, as a means of coercing them into giving up their own opinions, and their beliefs, in favour of the ignorance of your own.

        Attainment of Wisdom:

        To be highly educated is to become steeped in the opinions, beliefs and theorems of others.

        To become highly learned is to never add or lend ones weight to any object, situation, enterprise or philosophy; without first having tried tested and analyzed its potential for harm or for growth.

        Grow up
        • Mar 14 2014: Did you even read what I wrote? Your "answer" suggests that you didn't.
    • Mar 14 2014: Carl,

      "Therefore to believe that all is coincidence and evolution no more than a mindless undirected process of “randomness” is illogical."

      Of course. To think that it is mere randomness is a creationist straw-man. There's that concept ... oh yeah! Natural Selection! As I said, the environment and historical contingencies of life forms give it some direction. Thanks for demolishing that creationist cartoon. Hopefully creationist will stop using that cartoon to argue against evolution.
  • Mar 12 2014: Addendum IMO; 13/3/14

    The moment (um) of the beginning of creation lies at the centre of the circle and its radiant sphere (fundamental electromagnetic particle) of influence.

    Therefore the centre of the beginning of "everything" lies everywhere, and nowhere in particular, as every fundamental particle, is both a beginning and an ending;

    Existent of the never ending natural energy cycles of the infinite and eternal Universe.

    Observable/empirical reference; www. Hubble Telescope - Pillars of Creation
    .........................

    Creation

    Energy may be “Converted” but Energy can neither be Created nor Destroyed

    The Energy of a Thought is subsequently the Energy of Creation

    The Energy of Creation is subsequently the Energy of a Thought

    Therefore each is both the beginning and the ending of the other

    Intelligence

    You can no more take the Universe out of our scope of intelligence

    Than you can take our scope of intelligence out of the Universe

    Existence:

    If everything did not exist for a reason; neither I nor any other living thing could exist to reason.

    Genesis (1; 22); Multiplication; Evolution

    The sum of all that I am, you are, we are, is the sum of the history of all that we have been and all that we have learned; be it for good, or be it for ill.

    The sum of the history of all that we have been, and all that we have learned; is the foundation stone of all that we will continue to be, continue to learn, and "evolve” to become; be it for good, or be it for ill.

    In Sum Personal

    I think therefore I am metaphysical

    I loco-mote therefore I am physical

    Therefore I am "of" the Metaphysical - Spiritual - Physical Universe, that created me

    In Sum Universal

    As the sum of the Universe is infinitely and eternally inclusive; the sum of the Universe is the sum of its Alpha Omega energy cycles, which are without beginning or ending, as their beginnings are their endings, and their endings are their beginnings, ad - infinitum.

    Carl
  • Mar 12 2014: IMO (And entitled to hold)

    Creationism Religious Belief

    Belief is the assumption/acceptance that some event, or something was or is real, despite the fact that it cannot be proven to have taken place, or demonstrated to exist.

    Religions can be summed up as one in possessing the belief, that everything began when a "Sentient Being - God" suddenly appeared "abracadabra" out of nothing and nowhere, and then created the Earth and the Universe, out of the nothing and nowhere it came from.

    Big Bang - Scientific Belief

    Big Bang Advocates can be summed up as possessing the belief; that everything began when a super dense "God Particle" suddenly appeared "abracadabra" out of nothing and nowhere, and then created the Earth and the Universe, out of the nothing and nowhere it came from.

    In sum; both of these two virtually identical "beliefs" do not possess a "fundamental" iota of evidence of, or from the assumed or supposed "singular moment' of creation, to support their twin hypothesis. Therefore as neither hypothesis can claim to be based upon what was, or what is actual and factual; neither deserves any greater degree of credibility, than the other.

    However in regard to all of the theories, that have been put forward in regard to the supposed moment of creation, the Big Bang Theory stands out "in the light of its own source - the sciences"; as being heretical relative to its source.

    The Law of Physics, which pertains to the event/process of creation states;

    Energy may be converted, but energy can "neither be" Created or Destroyed

    It follows

    A. The Energy of the Holism (infinity and eternity) of the Universe, is Indestructible.

    B. The Holism of the Universe cannot be destroyed in reality, or by theory.

    C. The energy of the holism of the Universe is "infinite and eternal” = a continuum of interactive energy cycles/cyclic energy conversions.

    Universe is - Creator - is Universe

    See addendum to IMO; 13/3/14
    • Mar 13 2014: It is both ignorant and insulting to put the Big Bang, a scientific hypothesis-close-to-a-theory, into the same category as religious belief. That comes to show the shallowness of your knowledge about how science works. The Big Bang comes from a series of observations and solutions to problems in physics and astronomy. Not from mere belief in some book written by some savages before the middle ages. Not from some mere belief in what some fiction writer put into some pages to make a life out of the gullibility of other people.

      Come on.
  • Mar 12 2014: Of course they are mutually exclusive. On deals with facts and proofs, the other relies on faith. They are polar opposites.
    • Mar 13 2014: Science deals with theories based upon an assumption leading to further assumptions (Refer to Theorem Encyclopedia Britannica) and "wrongfully" named as to being, and called axioms, in order to impart the false belief that they are self evident truths, rather than unproven assumptions.

      Science also relies on belief and faith, in regard to its theories that have no empirical proofs in reality; e.g. Lemaitres BB theory

      Science also deals with facts and proofs, that have been gained via the means of empirical experimentation; but subject to the observers interpretations, and assumptions.

      Therefore as they are both reliant upon belief and faith, they are not polar opposites
      • Mar 14 2014: Your comment Carl could be summarized as: "Carl has no idea about the empirical evidence leading to the Big Bang and back into empirical evidence. Therefore he assumes that the BB is based on faith."
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2014: THIS TOPIC IS ULTIMATELY CONTROVERSIAL.

    The most INFLUENTIAL SCIENTISTS OF ALL TIME, to mention just a few, such as Galileo or Sir Isaac Newton, or even more contemporary to us Gregor Johann Mendel and Charles Darwin, and our most outstanding contemporary physicist Werner Heisenberg have had DEEPLY SPIRITUAL MINDS. They profoundly believed in God and were driven by their belief.


    Tal, maybe you mean " ARE CHIRCH and SCIENCE mutually exclusive?"

    Or you have asked your questions on purpose --- to provoke some arguments among people who are not aware of history of sciences and religion?


    Many answers you get here are lost in terminology - looks that there is no difference for the ted-people between Religion and the old institution called Chirch....

    Hope you will make some clarity.

    Thank you.
    • Mar 12 2014: No Vera,

      I think that the question is quite pertinent. You mention great scientists who were religious, and some others here have mentioned that and the fact, that I don't deny, that some great contemporary scientists are also religious. Those arguments reveal a variety of things, none of which contradicts the fact that religion and science do indeed conflict.

      Examples:
      1. Those scientists held beliefs in gods not compatible with their religions (in different ways and different levels), only they did not know because few "members" of a religion actually know well what their religions are supposed to be about.
      2. Those scientists had/have never truly confronted (or not confronted completely) those two sides of their lives, and therefore haven't noticed those conflicts.
      3. Those scientists can live with this cognitive dissonance, as many of us often do.
      4. Those scientists lived at times when the conflicts were more superficial, at least in appearance. For example, it wasn't too hard to put the Sun at the centre of the solar system (but it was still hard), but should those scientists have known about, say, evolution then they would have thought better about how much their religions could resist.
      5. Those scientists changed their religion's gods for a god more compatible with science. One whose working were either non-personal (Spinoza's for example), or personal, but not belonging to known religions. In other words, these scientists have invented new god versions that they can live with.
      6. Etc.

      I have been in some of these categories myself. Example. I read on the origin of species expecting to laugh at gorillas becoming humans in a zoo, only to find a coherent body of data and inescapable conclusions. So, I thought that maybe we misunderstood "God." I visited other religions, then new-age, etc. But in the end I understood the futility of inventing gods. Anyway. Science is incompatible with religion, more so when it succeeds in making you think courageously
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Thank you for replying!
        To say what you’re saying means to entirely deny the very mentality of the most inspirational classical scientists - they DID FOLLOW TRADITIONALLY ESTABLISHED BELIEF and its rules. Please, do not judge by what you, yourself, believe in, or do not believe in :) In the dawn of Materialism (!) Rene Descartes, a very traditionally religious man, was absolutely convinced that by discovering God’s laws (as well as how Newton believed in his work) he expressed his endless admiration of God.

        RELIGION as BELIEF never was against these great men and their work.

        Well, YES, Scientific Ideas were commonly not accepted, but only because of the Authorities’ Ignorance, poor knowledge of all sorts and the RULING force of that ignorance - not the religion as belief.

        Religion has its own Unfortunate history of “development”. As we all shall know, Early Christianity had many interpretations called Gnostic Gospels, which was the original form of Christianity, that could fit somewhat different experiences and mentalities.

        Since Emperor Constantine the Christianity has been squeezed into a limited dogmatic system, bloodily demolishing any interpretation of Christianity other than what Constantine himself had approved, within his Church.

        (At first In 313 Constantine and Licinius announced "that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best",[13] thereby granting tolerance to all religions, including Christianity. Never happened!!)

        The emperor became a great patron, actually a political ruler of the Church and set a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor within the Church.

        My point is that postmodern learned people/scholars do not refer themselves to any RELIGION for this very REASON we are facing in this conversation

        - they do NOT wish to be MIXED-UP with what the CHURCH authorities’ recycling mentality and dogma say.
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2014: I suggest to attribute nature to this or that God cultural concept without any evidence is poor reasoning even if you are a genius.

          understandable given the cultural context. But still unsubstantiated.
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2014: I note the religious beliefs of the great Hindu minds, conflict with the great Christian, Muslim and Buddhist, Egyptian, Babylonian and Chinese, scientists, mathematicians, inventors etc.

      so you can do great work even though logic indicates that all but one at best is has incorrect religious beliefs and possibly all of them are wrong.

      I suggest the point is the religious beliefs themselves are often anti or non scientific. And some forms of religious belief such as literal koranic or biblical beliefs, miracles, interventonist gods are mutually exclusive with sciences
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Please be your own judge. No primitive categorization can be seriously accepted in complicated history of human mind.

        Science is fundamentally based on Fantasic Imagination and many dreams, driven by the force of high inspiration. This inspiration can have many sources, including RELIGIOUS belief.

        People with no imagination cannot be scientists or researchers, especially when it comes to great scientists.

        Scientific thinking is naturally based on our creative abilities to imagine, observe, and then BELIEVE in what we observe.

        The greater scientist is the more he senses that the endless world is still uncomprehended.

        CHURCH not BELIEFS that fights over scientific thinking.

        Please read my comment to "Entropy Driven", above :)

        Thank you,

        Cheers.
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2014: I agree except that you fail to mention the creative hypothesises need to be tested and verified at some stage.

          no issue where the inspiration comes from as long as it is demonstrated to be correct, with evidence.

          I also note the scientific method works by not assuming supernatural magical explanations or miracles breaking the laws of nature.
    • Mar 12 2014: Hi Vera,

      Not a problem.

      You said: "they DID FOLLOW TRADITIONALLY ESTABLISHED BELIEF and its rules"

      Actually, no. They varied a lot in what and the way they believed. You took a bit of what they might have found inspiring, into their whole religious beliefs, and that's not what I see when I read about those scientists, or when I talk to those living today and who self-describe as believers. They all have all kinds of contradictory notions and different levels of cognitive dissonance. My description above was based on experience and study, not just what went through my own change from Christian to atheist. I added my experience to show that my own experience confirms parts of what I have found among other scientists who still hold to some god-beliefs. That I'm not merely an outsider looking into this.

      You talk about Christians, well, isn't it a fundamental belief there that there was a Jesus Christ and that this guy was God and it's son at the same time? Isn't it fundamental to these believers that Christ died for their sins? Isn't it fundamental that this was needed because we are unforgivably sinful? Broken to the core in need for this salvation and this salvation only? Doesn't it follow that therefore there's enormous contradictions to the explanation as to why we are so darn broken that conflict with our findings about how humanity came to be, the age of the universe, etc?

      Religions have their basis in our imaginative minds, not in some real gods out there. We know this from almost every side of scientific inquiry involving humanity, our cultures and evolution. All of this conflicts directly with religions at the very core of what causes these religious beliefs, and then about the conflicts between scientific findings and religious claims. There's a conflict, and scientists, being humans, might be able to live with those conflicts and contradictions without even noticing. yet, the conflicts do exist.

      Thanks for your amazingly nice and calmed answer.
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2014: I find it interesting that people are happy to accept atomic theory, the theory of relativity etc which most barely understand, yet they balk at accepting the theory of evolution.

    perhaps because it is not as counter intuitive or complex enough to be taken largely based on trusting scientists, we can see all the animal species, but still conflicts with religious indoctrination, or is on a time scale humans struggle with, and life, DNA, even a single cell is complex.it is mind boggling how a fertilised cell can develop into a human.

    Yet we can see so many similarities between humans and apes, with all mammals, with all vertebrae, physically and via DNA.

    4 limbs, 2 camera eyes, 2 ears, similar binge structures, heart, lungs, immune systems, respiration, circulation, sexual reproduction etc etc. Seems to make sense we are genetic cousins
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2014: Obey,

      Murphy said it well; an easily understood, workable falsehood has more value than an incomprehensible truth.

      To the religious advocate, evolution justifies evil; all's fair in love and war. They can't envision evolution and paradise in the same thought. So to them, to accept evolution is to give up paradise. For the struggling believer, that's just too much to bear. You have to put yourself in the mindset of those who struggle everyday just to survive. They take no joy in science because they don't understand it. The belief in eternal bliss is the only thing that keeps them going.

      And for the established churches, who run it like a business rather than a spiritual journey, the anticipation of paradise when all is said and done is a big seller.

      Eventually evolution is going to win the battle. But only when people are ready to understand it and can appreciate its value.
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2014: It was the old institution of CHIRCH not religion itself, that has been fighting new ideas of all sorts.

    "Amusingly" throughout history common people reaction towards scientific discoveries can be compared with some extreme religious reactions. People themselves, when they are not at all ready to accept something too new and unusual for their stiff mentality can destroy any evidence of the new.

    The tendency to "simplify" the facts while twisting the meaning of still uncomprehended evidence is a very common thing, happens to this very day.

    (Neurosciences are still explaining their own lab work as if they lived in the middle ages "we perfectly see how our brains are wired and function, and what they are made from" .)


    But my answer to the topic would be that Religion and Science cannot avoid their non-stop interactions - periodically "winning" one over another... but there is no true winner yet.
  • Mar 11 2014: Ladies and gentleman,

    "Jonathan Seagull" is a troll. He could not care less about this discussion, or about learning anything. He would have to be incredibly stupid to think that evolution means that dogs turned into cats. To think that way he would have to be unable to even write. Therefore he can't be but a troll.
    • Mar 11 2014: I agree, I think we've all been trying to show as much patience as possible.
  • Mar 11 2014: Why are we so compelled to educate the obviously uneducable? Why do we insist on educating someone who is the perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect?
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2014: Some aspects of some religions conflict with body of scientific knowledge
    e.g. young earth creationism, global flood etc

    others are outside the bounds of what scientific method is able to discern, e.g. some spirit realm, invisible gods, goddesses, spirits, demons etc.

    which is probably why there are so many conflicting spiritual beliefs as there is no reliable way of confirming much of these are correct.

    for example, we can see parts of the brain active while praying, but can not tell if there is some spiritual connection to whichever god concept the person is paying to.

    sometimes people catch a cold and they recover. The virus being present or not can be detected but we can not tell if spiritual agent was involved.

    Same with floods and natural disasters. Often religious folks point to some religious or spiritual cause but no way of proving this. d
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: Hi tai. I guess there are and have been plenty of people who disagree on minor or significant points of theological dogma. Some go on to form their own ministries or denominations. most major religious movements have many splits.

      Different people have different ideas of what it means to be a Christian. Some variations consider Jesus a god, or part of a triune god. Others think he was a messenger from god. Some believe in a Dante type hell. Others don't.

      I guess it's like language, religious dogmas evolve, dime to the point they are really a completely different religion.

      but I suggest the billions who.considered themselves Christian have had a wide range of views. Done believe in floods, divine genocide, an evil god, and miracles. Others believe these are myths or symbolic stories. That God is loving, not a divine monster, killing himself to save us from himself.
      • Mar 11 2014: However ridiculous the belief may seem, "faith" tends to have a stronger hold on people than I care to challenge. But when these views trespass on the territory of science I don't understand the disconnect. Is it a lack of trust in the scientific community?
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: I support freedom of religion. No issue with people having faith based beliefs unless they start to harm others. When religion tries to undermine science, reason, and evidence, human rights then I object.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2014: Tai and Obey,
          This is the challenge I see with some religions and fundamentalists.....the need to "trespass" and adversely impact other people who do not share the same beliefs.

          I believe that science and religion co-exist except with some people who cannot or will not understand or accept the fact that some folks have different beliefs.
  • Mar 7 2014: "Metaphor"
    "Symbolism"
    Look these words up.
    Religious literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon.
    • Mar 7 2014: For any scripture there are great pains taken to make stories symbolic. Although this is done by every religious person to a varying degree, it still requires a belief in the basic concepts of a religion. If all religion was only a compilation of metaphors it would have little difference between basic fiction stories that focus on human interaction.
      • Mar 10 2014: But what are the "basic concepts"? For Christianity, the "basic concepts" are not a six-day creation of the universe just a few thousand years ago.
  • Mar 7 2014: Yes. Yes they are mutually exclusive. Not only that, science wins.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2014: Science wins what?

      Just in case, in this conversation many TEDpeople are confused by the provocative or simply erroneous Question of the TOPIC. The truth is that Not Religion but CHIRCH with its no-go mentality has been against everything new.

      Religion as Belief-in-God has NEVER been against sciences - on the contrary the most influential scientists of all times were deeply religious, inspired and driven by their belief.


      SCIENCE HAS BEEN BUILT BY DEEPLY SPIRITUAL MINDS FROM ITS FOUNDATION

      Galileo, Mendel, Newton, Darwin, Heisenberg etc,. endless list. Science cannot "win" over the very spirit that drives it to its most great discoveries.

      Maybe you mean to say that sciences are winning over the religious establishment?
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2014: Seems to me that religious beliefs in a 6000 year old universe, global floods, gods causing disease, droughts, hurricanes is anti scientific whether church endorsed or just held by an individual.

        many religious beliefs are and have been at odds with our current scientific knowledge and at best suit outside what is verifiable by the scientific method.

        it's not just the religious establishment. Sometimes it is the beliefs themselves and the behavior they inspire in individuals.

        how can it be scientific to have thousands of conducting religious beliefs?
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: I'm not sure what you mean when you say "sciences" or "scientific". It seems that you have categorized sciences based on some popularized ideas. Or maybe you have your own definition?

          Please clarify, I'd appreciate if you take a minute or two to explain what you believe sciences really are, what do they deliver, on what grounds are they standing today and who is supporting them, financially or morally?

          I'm a lifetrained reseracher, working with a group of scientists and mathematicians on daily basis.

          Every truly advanced, major work faces innourmous obstacles, and must go through them. Postmodern authorized power, and brainless industrialists can be as ignorant and as dangerously naive as old Church.

          'All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.' - A. Schopenhauer
  • Mar 7 2014: i have asked many of my colleagues about this and some are religious and they say they are discovering what God has left for us to discover. They are not fundamentalist.
  • Mar 5 2014: I hold that Science and Religion cannot logically coexist. I am open for discussion.
    • thumb
      Mar 7 2014: Hi Tai
      I would make the following observations....
      A) The vast majority of scientific endeavour has nothing to do with 'religion'.
      B) Religion is too broad a brush; to many football is religion, let's go for biblical Christianity. This is normally what these discussions get down to in the end.
      C) Science was initiated in order to understand how things work. The assumption being that if God created things then there would be order & method that we could understand.
      D) Science is constantly evolving (?) , The bible is set in stone. 100 years ago science and the bible were in general agreement, today less so, tomorrow, who knows ?
      E) In the narrow field where science & religion intertwine (Origins) there are conflicting views by good men on both sides. As all the data relates to bygone ages, there is little empirical information. It becomes a matter of interpretation. The majority claim the mantle of 'Science' & call the others names, but that isn't really very encouraging.
      This is a great subject & has been flogged to death here, but personally I love it & am happy to discuss it with you.

      :-)
      • Mar 8 2014: Peter, I see that in these spaces of intersection, religion has no choice but to confide in metaphors. What I struggle to understand, is why theists rather believe religious explanations when there is no evidence for them.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2014: Hi Tai
          The simple answer is that there IS evidence for them. I set out at age 35 to prove to my wife that the bible was nonsense; that it had no basis in fact. To my shock I discovered otherwise; the bible is vindicated by history, archeology, & science.
          Eg. We are told that the sedimentary layers took millions of years to form. The bible tells of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic, flood; which we assume deposited the layers. We cannot be certain which is true; we weren't there, but we now know for a fact that millions of years are not a prerequisite. Check this out...
          http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo

          :-)
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2014: Peter,

        The bible is set in stone? Only because religious establishments won't allow you to question their dogma. The history of religion shows that it evolved radically over the centuries. Only since science was challenged by the Catholic church did it stop evolving. There are only ten commandments written in stone. Most of the laws of the Old Testament have been abandoned.

        I would agree that the bible, as a spiritual book, has lessons to teach that won't change. But the controversy between science and religion is based on biblical interpretation. I will stand on the conviction that THE BIBLE TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT HOW GOD CREATED ANYTHING. On that basis, I will not challenge earth sciences with biblical interpretation.

        Your video link explains rapid changes in a local area where laminated deposits exist where none would have been expected. It does not explain the stratification of the fossil record worldwide. How does rapid lamination formation sort out all the fossils so they only appear in specific layers? As far as the grand canyon goes, a melting glacier that covered most of North America would produce the same effects that Dr. Steve Austin explained concerning Mt. St. Helens.

        Using Harry Truman in the video as an example of defiance was a poor choice. He knew that if the mountain erupted, that he would lose his life. But he saw his life as ended if he should have to leave his paradise behind. He was ready to meet his maker and would do so if God should will it to be. He knew the risks and accepted them under God's grace.

        I am a devout Christian. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and will treat my fellow human being with the same respect that I would want in return. I see quantum mechanics, and God, as two different expressions of the same thing, so they are not mutually exclusive. Aside from that, I see a lot of what the church is teaching that I would disagree on.