In no way can science ever be considered a religion. Keep in mind, it's science, not the Bible, that allows us to have this conversation in the media we are having it, and it's all based off an enormous string of "on/offs". Pretty mind boggling to say the least.

 

You may not know just how accurate that statement is. The more understood the nature of the subatomic particle is understood, the more instances of two state systems are found, essentially running on an "on/off" state. The laws of the natural world can then also be interpreted as a series of possible events mapped out in a logical branching structure, not unlike computer code. The more I study the more it seems like the universe is "programmed". Regarding free will however, every program requires user input, so god may have wrote the code but it is up to us how to execute it, for good or bad. I do not believe in fate or any entity's ability to know the future, the entire principle of chaos is based on this. The possible outcomes may be known, but it is impossible to know which potential will actually occur.

Bottom line, something may have constructed the mechanics of the universe, but that thing is not guiding it's direction. The solids and stripes were racked and the cue ball was struck, but there is no telling where each ball will break.

 

according to the definition of religion

science can be

and i only said for the sake of the argument, in all honesty i agree. science would never really be considered a religion, science and religion do coincide with each other htough.

always have, always will.

 

Everything in science is quantifiable, if its not, it is specifically labeled a theory ex: Big Bang Theory, etc. In religion, it is basically word of mouth by people who might as well have been fiction writers. One point I want to bring to light as it never occurred to me before; out of all the scholars and philosophers of the Jesus era, not one made an account of Jesus. That does seem strange if in fact Jesus was able to accomplish everything that the Bible insists he did.

 

Praying in front of the vending machine won't get me a bag of chips, but $.55 will.

 

^^

 

Jesus was all about loving your neighbor and reaching out to everyone equally why are their so many different interpretations and his word isn't so universally known? If he was at all divine wouldn't we as humans understand it easily? Why would God want to be so mysterious if he wants us to follow his teachings?

If God is so infallible and His word is supposed to be perfect and the people whom God wrote the Bible through weren't adding their own opinions then why are there so many different Bibles? Wouldn't that alone contradict that God is infallible? Why would he allow His word to have so many different contradictions?

 

Uhm, no. In science, theories are large bodies of knowledge backed by mountains of empirical evidence gathered through countless hours of experimentation/observation and reems of peer reviewed articles which are used to make predictions with a given set of circumstances.

What it is not is simply some idea, notion, or best guess.

 

one thing i wanted to add to this discussion.... king solomon's reign altered the bible. it was altered to fit in with current holidays of the day. those times were predominantly pagan, but were quickly growing christian. a middle ground was negotiated onto apease the two religions. the holidays are the only ones that are provable, the rest of the alterations are conjecture.

 

What? You mean some monarch just up and changed the word of God?! No? Man, I bet that's the only time that's happened!

 

i'm sure it's not the only time, but it's the only time that anyone has bothered to prove it.

 

The First Council of Nicea was to gather and decide whether Jesus was part of the Father or similar to Him, so it was at that point three hundred and twenty five years after Christ's death that men decide whether he was divine or not. If you believe the Bible then you must understand that we are all similar to God because we were all made in his image.

 

Very eloquent, however, I said: In science, there are Theories and Facts. After your rebuttal of "Umm, no", you followed by an over the top explanation of a theory. What is your point?

 

Because you seemed to indicate that theories and facts are somehow seperate, and you explicitly stated that theories were non-quantifiable.

It was over the top because of the popular definition of theory is that it is just a best guess, a notion, or an idea, and your statement seemed to indicate that you were coming from a postion of that definition. I just wanted to be thorough and crystal clear.

 

Your initial presumption was correct. Theories and Facts are completely separate entities. Your version of a theory is just a clever definition of an educated guess, and thats all they are no matter how you twist semantics. A fact is a fact. I do not see how you would argue otherwise.

 

why are we debating the meaning of words? doesn't anyone know how to use wikipedia? i mean, really, is this gonna become like the clinton trial, where we had to define sex? get past this and move back to the topic.

 

will have to check out at home.

 

The Thoery of Electromagnetism

The Theory of Gravity

The Theory of Evolution

The Theory of Relativity

These are not guesses. These are entire bodies of knowlege used thousands of times a minute by engineers all over the world to develop new technologies and better ways of doing things.

I'm trying to differentiate, in your mind, the difference between the layman's version of the word, and the scientific definition.

 

Religion topics always, eventually get around to evolution. Which invariably brings up the layman's rebuttal: "it's just a theory". I'm just getting this crap out of the way sooner rather than later.

 

do you have any evidence to prove that engineers use this... any of these theorys, thousands of times every minute? i'm not saying you're wrong, but you need to find firmer ground than just pulling it out of your butt. being 105, i'm sure you are aware of the necessity of evidence/data in statistical analysis and argumentation.

on another note, i believe the thread becomes locked when we get off topic. as we seem to be, i would say it's time to lock it, wouldn't you? we can start a new one where we argue about the meanings of words and whether someone pulled facts out of their butt.(neat trick btw)