Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The bible according to science

Posted 8 years ago on May 3, 2012, 10:23 p.m. EST by francismjenkins (3713)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Even in a vacuum of infinite-empty space, virtual particles form spontaneously, coalesce, and universes emerge. Then, elementary particles become elements, elements molecules, molecules compounds. Eventually, lipids form vacuoles, minerals like clay catalyze the formation of nucleic acids and simple cells emerge. Over the course of millions of years those simple cells become exceedingly complex. Through natural selection, eventually we have protists, plants, fish, and ultimately, terrestrial organisms. No magic, not very much mystery, and no miracles ... just straightforward science.

It may lack the allure of mythology, but such is truth.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8706) 8 years ago

I don't believe that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. At the end of his life, J. Robert Oppenheimer became a Hindu Mystic. At the sub-atomic level particles fade in and out of existance. The wall of certaintly that Newton built, which lasted hundreds of years, has come crashing down. It is clear that although science and reason are both necessary, and both needed to place checks on some kinds of human stupidity, science does not have all the answers.

Having said that, given a choice between being led by science or religion, I would take science hands down.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Now, see, you can do it under 10 seconds. I would have savored it by shredding the entire zombie cult.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

That might be the funniest thing you ever said here.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

"Science without religion is lame.." In the same letter Einstein goes on to say, "The word god for me is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are never the less pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

Religion to Einstein had a different meaning and did not consist of a personal God whom one addressed through prayer. His religious beliefs were more in the way of Taoism.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

Before I could agree or disagree with that, I would have to review my comparative mythology. It's been a while. What, in particular, leads you to this conclusion?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

"The "Tao" is too great to be described by the name "Tao". If it could be named so simply, it would not be the eternal Tao.

Heaven and Earth began from the nameless (Tao), but the multitudes of things around us were created by names.

We desire to understand the world by giving names to the things we see, but these things are only the effects of something subtle.

When we see beyond the desire to use names, we can sense the nameless cause of these effects.

The cause and the effects are aspects of the same, one thing. They are both mysterious and profound. At their most mysterious and profound point lies the "Gate of the Great Truth". ~ Lao Tzu



[-] 3 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Quantum physics tells us that causality is invalid. Causes and effects presume time which becomes meaningless at quantum (mostly microscopic but not necessarily so) scale. Time is just our parametrization (viz., a tool to think with) of events which is very malleable according to relativity. We can apply the statistical approach of quantum physics to resolve whether religion or science have been beneficial through comparative historical studies. My take is that applying the scientific method and combining that with the proper WILL had outstripped religions by leaps and bounds in improving human welfare. Ultimately, a metrological approach will help unify all who are rational. Unfortunately, that could very well always be a minority because new suckers are born every minute and many old suckers would rather stick with their comfort zones than to demolish obsolete psychic constructs. I have been both a new and an old sucker.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

We can apply the statistical approach of quantum physics to resolve whether religion or science have been beneficial through comparative historical studies. My take is that applying the scientific method and combining that with the proper WILL had outstripped religions by leaps and bounds in improving human welfare.

There is no doubt that science has improved the materialistic aspect of human life, but that's where it ends. There is far more to human existence than the material.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"

~ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, paleontologist and a philosopher

Love can never be fully explained by a series of chemical reactions, stochiometry, statistics, or the laws of physics.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

In the early days of a developing branch of knowledge, the dichotomy of the physical realm and the spiritual or abstract realm can be helpful to jettison nearly all of the complexities of physical reality in favor of simple abstract models so that some headway can be made through a first approximation or an idealized model. However, as more knowledge has been accumulated, amendments to models and theories inevitably push the focus to the unification of both realms into ONE. There IS NO separate spiritual realm away from the physical realm. Yes, our paradise is LOST but is it truly lost if we know that paradise CAN and must be realized in the physical realm? We have suffered for too long from the curse of dichotomy. Without concrete definitions such as for love, we are doomed to suffer from all of the gobbledygook. Yes, love, properly defined, WILL be explained by a series of chemical reactions, stoichiometry, and statistics by the laws of physics.

Darwin's theory was good for advancing biology for a while but is Lamarckism truly incorrect now that we know epigenetics plays a vital role. We have printed out and read the "Book of Life" for a decade. What have we found? It IS a lot more complicated than the Darwinian genes! The environment-related "sins of the fathers" can visit upon their descendants to at least the second generation. Is that not what Lamarck (or to the delight of the Bible fundamentalists, the jealous God) was saying? I am NOT discrediting Darwin because his inheritance factor's interaction with the environment was a good first approximation.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

In the early days of a developing branch of knowledge, the dichotomy of the physical realm and the spiritual or abstract realm can be helpful to jettison nearly all of the complexities of physical reality in favor of simple abstract models so that some headway can be made through a first approximation or an idealized model.

Interesting, but you must ask how do we often, especially in most of our great discoveries, arrive at those 'abstract models' in the first place? The answer when asked of the great discoverers is inspiration.

Like shamans of old Crick, of the discovery of DNA's 3D structure, ingested hallucinogens and tapped his 'inner being', with the result being the revelation of the Caduces providing the elusive answer to the problem.... not math.

Einstein's meditations at the Clock Tower in Bern providing the inspiration for Relativity... not math.

It might be argued that inspiration, being in the zone of alpha wave awareness, is chemical in nature. I believe that as math describes the physical universe, it is not the physical universe. While chemical equations describe what is happening within us, I see them as descriptions....Chemistry does not explain the spark of life. How does one explain awe, empathy, and again love?

I am not a religious fundamentalist... I am barely religious at all, carrying on more in the sense of religion the way Einstein views it. But some subjective experiences are hard to dismiss, which makes me spiritual. I believe in the existence of the 'soul'... that which provides the spark of life. When you have seen someone die up close and personal, which I have, it is hard to dismiss that a soul does not indeed exist as I have witnessed it depart.... maybe in time that too will be explained.

Without concrete definitions such as for love, we are doomed to suffer from all of the gobbledygook. Yes, love, properly defined, WILL be explained by a series of chemical reactions, stoichiometry, and statistics by the laws of physics.

On reflection, perhaps you are right... perhaps you are wrong. If correct then we are sentenced to an existence not much different than the black and white world envisioned by Libertarians. Intuitively, I feel we exist in a world of color. I don't feel that believing as such eliminates reason and objectivity.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Linus Pauling had a model of the DNA with treble instead of double helix. An hypothesis is that Francis Crick might have gotten the X-ray crystallographic experimental data about DNA from Pauling's laboratory. The hallucinogen ingestion might simply have been a cover story to obscure the origin of the inspiration. Often, inspiration does not come from nothing. Usually something triggers it. Even at the time of Einstein, the attempt to reconcile Maxwell's electromagnetic theory with Newton's mechanics was heavy in the air. That was why we have Lorentz transformations and not Einstein transformations. I am NOT belittling Einstein's insights (for example, his eventual acceptance of the very revolutionary de Broglie's matter wave showed his greatness [knowing that he was the one who had revived Newton's corpuscular theory of light]) but if one looks really closely, there were many famous scientists who did NOT do the attributions so as to appear smarter than they truly were. Many breakthroughs only appear to be so when the fox has wiped away the evidences with its tail.

The soul is a name that we apply to a state of being based on substantial coherence of actions. If you examine the metaphor closely enough, you may agree that there is NO spark of life in a car battery but we can use its electrical energy both to jump-start a car and to "put the soul" back into a clinically dead person. Where does the soul exist between clinical death and successful resuscitation? Is the physical law of conservation of energy-momentum violated by death? I see death as more of a phase change phenomenon than a fissile phenomenon. That is why we CAN resuscitate clinically dead people, sometimes.

We ARE machines of high complexities but the black and white world needs NOT be our existence. The experience of living is deeply personal and subjective and should be enjoyed or suffered as such but let us not discredit the physical basis for it all. By recognizing our being machines, we should come to realize that our perceived threats coming from robots and automation are of our OWN doing. Automation can be beneficial to us and robots can be our children of a different kind. We need to infuse them with the proper values and goals.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

I think to a certain extent ... the propensity towards religiosity is a part of human nature. For instance, we always assume things have a cause, because we've never experienced anything that didn't have a cause (so causation is a natural presumption).

If we eventually discover that outer space is this endless, timeless thing, and universes naturally emerge from this background (with no guiding force, no predetermined outcome, etc.) it will be less than satisfying, but this appears to be the case. Certainly, we have much to learn, and we cannot prove this hypothesis empirically.

But we already have substantial evidence telling us biological evolution was an unguided, purposeless process. This science alone, logically speaking, creates huge problems for religion (and I think anyone who has an appreciation for intellectual honesty, should admit this to themselves).

To a certain extent religion, poetry, philosophy, etc., come from the same place. We don't like the idea that at the end of the chain of causation there's just dark space. It's certainly not a very romantic idea, and let's face it, mythic legends can be fun and they can inspire our imagination. However, the big problem with religion (as I see it) is its utter lack of humility, and its appeal to tribalism.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

yes when you 'know' you are right, and anyone not in your same 'know' are lesser than,. then you are in a cult of hate.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Right, which describes many religious systems. For the most part atheists don't make dogmatic claims (unless maybe we're talking about a law of nature, like entropy or conservation of energy or something like that). Atheism only seems confrontational to religious people who aren't accustomed to having their views openly and rigorously challenged. But continue to challenge those views we will. Not because we're dogmatically convinced that we know it all, but because we're quite sure that religion doesn't know very much about anything, and we acknowledge that such misplaced confidence, can have dangerous consequences for our species.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

yes only faith-heads hold ignorance as a virtue.

it is not dogmatic to defend reality,. they are not claims when they can be replicated and retested, they are tested reality at that point.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Indeed, but I'm talking about more hypothetical ideas (like for instance pre-big bang theoretical physics). On evolution, I'd say the matter is settled, albeit there's still some missing pieces (but very minor pieces at this point, and considering all the other pieces, there's really only one way to fill the gaps, with a naturalistic explanation).

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

what mater? there is no either or, faith is purposeful ignorance,. with some fantasy and a good love/hate fest on sundays,. or whatever day they have their get together. Some good poetry and art comes from many religions,. but to take any these stories literally sure does require a superior willing suspension of disbelief.

personally, I have little but scorn and ridicule left for religion or the religious. however I sense a science-as-religion feel from your posts, and I would warn that faith sucks in all cases. be careful not to instill supernatural power to a simple system of testing reality to conclude knowledge.

remember, science being neutral, has no desire or will at all. We do.., the funding does,. what get's published, and widely reported does, but in understanding of this universe we are still just babies really,. just think of the lack of explanation of the process by which DNA stores the 3d data of how to unfold cells in animal development,. How do cells 'know' where in space they are? to develop an organ, or more skin and hair? many processes and reactions are nowhere near understood,. we are just little children.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

I'm not endorsing science as a religion by any means (sorry if I gave that impression, but that sort of science orthodoxy would be, in a sense, an oxymoron, completely inconsistent with scientific method).

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I believe in God - I believe in his son our savior. I think religion can go to hell as it is warped to say the least. Religion is man made and as such is imperfect and subject to corruption and manipulation.

Sorry I had to sat it.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

Science is just a methodology, a tool. A means to obtain verifiable objective knowledge.

In of itself there is no moral or ethical framework within science. Morality, and ethics are the realm of philosophy and theology, even politics. What to do with that knowledge that science has brought forth and how to apply it? Science doesn't answer that. Viewed in this light, Einsteins statement makes perfect sense.

But what of subjective experience and knowledge? This too is not in the realm of science. Is subjective knowledge invalid? No.

[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

I totally disagree, I think science can help us answer moral questions. Indeed, the scientific method is itself somewhat of a moral virtue. It sets as a goal the accumulation of accurate science. Theology, on the other hand, is the worse possible tool for moral guidance. It's premised on irrationality.

Here's a video you might be interested in, which postulates this question:


[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

The scientific method is amoral. It is designed to maximize data integrity, which is not a ethical or moral, but a practical consideration.

What keeps science honest and objective in obtaining knowledge through observation and experimentation is the separation of the objective and subjective. Morality is subjective.

In his opening example of why we treat various life forms differently, mostly having to do with our empathy tied to the life forms ability to suffer or feel pain, he melds observational data obtained from science and uses it as a basis for moral behavior. That's ok, but when one begins coloring the knowledge of science through various interpretations, you are no longer in the realm of pure science but have moved on to subjective interpretation, you are wearing a different hat and must be aware of that.

The knowledge gained from science does indeed guide us and in many ways shapes our policies. But again that is through interpretation of facts.

A glass container that is 10 cc's in volume contains water that occupies 5 cc's of the glass. Is the glass half full or half empty? The answer to that question has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with perceptions, interpretations, and values. The interpretation is purely subjective. All interpretations are subjective.

It becomes very, very dangerous when the lines become crossed. A perfect example is the Climate Change issue. The science is clear on AGW Theory. The political consequences are a mess and the detractors of the AGW Theory have politicized the issue so much so that science has taken a major hit in credibility. Some of that is indeed the fault of Climate Scientists like Hanson that politicized the science. Objectivity gets lost in the shuffle, science gets lost in the shuffle.

Religion and morality are subjects that are as passionate as politics, and just as dangerous to science. Science without objectivity and used as the basis of morality, even for the common good is a double edged sword and can lead to such atrocities as the Eugenics movement.



[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 8 years ago

I don't disagree with you, except that a virtual particle is about as "real" as virtual reality.

Your post might lead one to believe that a virtual particle is some type of elementary building block when it is nothing of the sort. The term virtual particle is generally (in a very elementary sense) used when referring to "exchanges" between particles as pictured in Feynman diagrams. I've never read about virtual particles "existing" outside of the "range" of real particles.

As for evolution, I believe the jury is pretty well in on that one, though some may have difficutly in accepting that humans have descended from an unknown primate. Nevertheless, many of the objections to Darwinism have merit and are not always dismissable as ignorance or blind faith: a current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has acknowledged that: ". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed." That quotation is from Schwartz's book Sudden Origins.

Again, I agree that religion is not needed to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of humans, but I think we should use caution when trying to convince others of this by making blanket statements that may not be concise enough, therefore, easily open to refutation.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Casimir effect and zero point energy (it is true, assuming space is a giant vacuum, there's still activity at the quantum scale, but the implication is "nothingness" really can't exist, even in outer space, even potentially beyond the horizon of our known universe, quantum fluctuations happen).

Here's a good vid on this:


On evolution, the question really IS settled. To quote Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" ... and when we look at the overwhelming evidence, it becomes clear that this statement is resoundingly true.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 8 years ago

I'm not familiar with any recognized text that postulates virtual particles "exist" outside the "range" of known particles. Quantum fluctuations do not amount to particles. Implications and conclusions do not amount to facts. Particle physics is full of contradictions and uncertainties. For instance a photon may be viewed as a positive particle moving forward in time, or as an electron moving backward in time; our concept of time may not apply at the particle level, and the "arrow of time" may also not apply.

As for evolution, I agree it makes sense, but many holes exist in the theory. Most educated people accept it, because no other theory, with the evidence we have accumulated to this time, more satisfactorily explains the origin and progression of earthly life.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago


life is 4 billion years old

[-] 1 points by 99forGood (1) 8 years ago

And then Santa comes on his sleigh with eight tiny reigndeer giving gifts to the terrestrial organisms....

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Like I've always said, if we insist on religion, Santa Claus should be our deity. I mean, nothing against Jesus. He sort of emerges in his story at 30 years old (roughly speaking), says a bunch of nice things (most of which seem to be pretty good virtues), and then the big bad Romans kill him. I think if Jesus were around today, he would have been (most likely) camping out in Zuccotti Park.

But the idea of vicarious sacrifice is a very strange idea, and I'm not quite sure how productive it is. In the first place, sin a subjective word, and we can choose to be good people (we're not irreparably depraved, I think this dark view of human beings probably reflects the dark mentality of the people who came up with this shit). Yes, we're imperfect I suppose (whatever that means, whatever we want to measure ourselves against, etc.), but imagine how boring perfection would be? It implies some sort of universal standardization (like a robot species).

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I believe that the idea is - No we are not perfect & No one Is - But that does not mean that we should not try to be better than we are. It is the striving to do better to be better - that is the exercise.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Right, whereas religion really obstructs this quest for human betterment. In many cases there's a presumption of depravity. In other words, only by appealing to mysticism can we have any hope of overcoming this (supposedly) uncontrollable urge to sin.

Of course religion defines "sin" in a way that sort of guarantees this outcome. For example, sex is a natural desire, because above everything else, natural selection rewards organisms that do a good job of reproducing. So suddenly this very natural impulse becomes something we should be ashamed of, and under this standard, sure, everyone will have an uncontrollable desire to sin.

So religion stacks the deck against us right from the get go, and why should we participate in something that stacks the deck against us, and not to mention, reduces to the absurd.

I mean, even if I didn't take all of those college courses in biology, chemistry, physics, calculus, etc., I would still find religion problematic. The standard should be very simple. Barring "very" good evidence, there's no reason why we shouldn't examine claims from antiquity in the same way we'd examine similar claims, if they were made today. If someone emerged from a cave and told you he spoke to an angel, or if someone came down from a mountaintop, and told you he spoke to a plant (who he identified as god) .... you would think he or she is either crazy, full of shit, or on some pretty good drugs. If a group of people approached you with these sort of claims, you would call them a bizarre cult. Examining similar claims in a different way, just by caveat of the fact that they appear in an ancient book, is called a special pleading (which we call a logical fallacy, and for good reason).

It wouldn't be so bad if society simply subjected religion to the same scrutiny as everything else, but we don't, we enshrine it in this protective veneer, and exempt it from critical scrutiny. Indeed, we call critical scrutiny of religion bigotry, when its claims are making empirical statements ... that are within the proper purview of science (or at least the application of something similar to scientific method, should be considered perfectly valid and appropriate in this context).

Just like we're looking at our society and finding serious flaws in the way we've been running things, nothing, and I mean nothing, should be exempt from critical scrutiny. And if it fails that test, we shouldn't be afraid to simply dispose of it.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23230) 8 years ago

Big Bang!

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 8 years ago

You overlooked something... the miracles of technology. Think Holodeck, make it bigger... and make it a universe.

At least 6,000 years ago human civilisation became so advanced that humans had become immortal and could create universes like this one to entertain themselves.

Created in the image of God means being a simulation of a human. And of course God can assume roles in this universe (and look like an ordinary human to us). Then the question arises: Who is God?


Christians call Jesus Son of God but in the Quran God stresses that Jesus was human. There is ample evidence that the texts of the Gospels have been changed and that the role of Mary Magdalene has been altered. Jesus was a reincarnation of Adam while Mary Magdalene was a reincarnation of Eve. In the original creation story Eve was not made out of the rib of Adam but Eve gave birth to Adam. This is the reason why Eve was called Mother of All the Living (Gen. 3:20). For 6,000 years God has hidden Her identity.

In the Gospel Adam is named Son of God (Luke 3:38) while Jesus is called firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15). This means that Adam was born and that Eve was God. The Gospel also states that Christians are children of God and born of God (John 1:12-13), which implies that God is a Mother and that the text has been altered later. The love of God Jesus was speaking of (John 17:23-26), is the love of a Goddess for Her husband. Jesus was born in the same way Adam was born, from a woman without the seed of a man. Eve and Adam have been around many times. Noah was a husband of God, like Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Mohammed. Reincarnations of Eve and Adam also played a significant role in history outside The Bible.

This universe is a holographic virtual reality based on a real world. It is controlled by a programme that is running for approximately 6,000 years. The purpose of this universe is to provide entertainment for a woman we call God. God can assume roles in Her own universe. The real world She comes from probably has come about by accident and the laws of natural selection do apply there. The real humans we call gods produced an advanced civilisation, became immortal and entertain themselves with holographic virtual realities.

The complete text can be found here:


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

Incredible !

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

Addresing this subject but not the thread- Is God powerful enough to create the big bang and evolution
EXACTLY the way science shows it occurred ?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

Well, when you say "God", what are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

God is whoever or whatever YOU believe

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

Okay, so when you say "God", you've now clarified that you're talking about whoever or whatever I believe. Since I'm not aware of you having any knowledge of whoever or whatever I believe but you clearly declare to be talking about something I believe, could you be a bit more specific in identifying this belief of mine in whoever or whatever that up to now I never knew I had?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

I did not imply that YOU is LeoYo
YOU is anyone

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

Okay then let's take it from there (I'm sure you know, I'm obviously going somewhere with this). You've now further clarified that when you say "God", you're talking about whoever or whatever anyone believes. So, what is that? What is this whoever or whatever that anyone believes that you know of to have referred to?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

I cannot make it clearer. I cannot answer this question for anyone else.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

You're the one who made the reference to "God" in your question, not anyone else. Thus, my inquiry has really only pertained to what you have understood your reference to pertain to, not to what whoever or whatever anyone else believes.

So, if it can't be made any clearer, what we're really left with is a question that essentially asks;

Is something unclear powerful enough to create the big bang and evolution EXACTLY the way science shows it occurred?

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

If I said there's an omnipotent celestial tea pot floating somewhere in space that created everything, would the first question be ... is this tea pot powerful enough to create a universe (I mean, since I invented the story, or actually Bertrand Russell invented it, I suppose my tea pot can be as powerful as I declare it to be).

Of course not, the first question, and the proper question, is can I empirically prove that this tea pot exists? If the answer is no, then no one should care about my contrived tea pot myth, since a credible claim cannot be premised on what amounts to a bare assertion.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8706) 8 years ago

Science is the art of knowing more and more about less and less.

[-] -3 points by veron (-39) 8 years ago

Wrong. As usual.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8706) 8 years ago

Science is reductionist. It involves specialization. The more specialized it becomes . . . anybody but you could probably get the picture.

[-] -3 points by veron (-39) 8 years ago

"Science" and "specialization" are not synonyms.

Any statement beginning with "Science is the art of..." is suspect, as is the credibility of the person making it.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8706) 8 years ago

Look what just came out of your mouth. Do you say things mearly to make a noise?

[-] -1 points by veron (-39) 8 years ago

It's spelled "merely". And no, I wouldn't want to take your job away from you.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

said much more simply-
science is science & faith is faith

people of science don't force anyone to accept their position that
the earth is the center of the universe
people of faith have been slaughtering and burning non-belivers
for centuries

I speculate
that if you KNOW you are right,
...you don't care who else KNOWS
that if you BELIEVE you are right, ...you must make sure everyone else BELIEVES

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

That is true with religion, whereas large numbers of people not understanding science, has severe consequences.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 8 years ago

" virtual particles form spontaneously"... Something from nothing? Religion.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

So, how is this the bible according to science?


[-] 0 points by Rush123 (3) 8 years ago

Tis forum isn't for religious issues. I'm Lutheran and we sure as shit did not come from monkeys. If we did then through the evolution process then by now there should be no monkeys because by evolutions ideas we would have wiped them all out if we are better and more stronger species than them.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

butterflies don't evolve from caterpillars
they are made by God whenever He sneezes
thats why we can see caterpillars and butterflies at the same time . and the easter bunny lays easter eggs - chocolate of course

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 8 years ago

A butterfly does not evolve from a caterpillar; the process is called metamorphosis. Evolution involves, among other things, successful multi-generational adaptation to the environment.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

I think bensdad was making a joke (or else my humor radar is really out of wack today) :)

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 8 years ago

I appreciated the humor, but hate to leave room for those opposed to accepting the theory of evolution on the basis of error--sort of like Piltdown Man. I simply don't want to provide excuses for the nuts to keep children believing in Medieval myths.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

I'm certainly with you on that count ... the fact that evolution is even controversial in America, should be a source of national embarrassment.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

You're right, we didn't come from monkeys, but of course no evolutionary biologist would ever say such a ridiculous thing. We share a common ancestor (which is very different). Moreover, this isn't a religious issue. Religion is mythic legend, my post is an approximate explanation of reality.

And, obviously, you never took a biology course (nuff said) :)

Let me guess, Kansas, or maybe Alabama?

[-] 5 points by VQkag (930) 8 years ago

LOL. Very good. I like to say Al Abama. because there are as many religious wackos there as there in Al Quada. You wont convince any religious wackos anyway but good luck I'm with you.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago


this babble in this thread about the Bible is more proof of our predicament as the human species and how much longer we may survive here on the earth. We have not been able to completely accept science as fact and religion as myth as yet. Until we collectively get our heads out of our a$$es we will suffer needlessly due to our ignorance. Ignorance of the evident truth, of which science provides us in ample supply, only causes us perilous suffering. Religion has been played out and tried with horrific consequences over millenniums already. This dreadful history need not be repeated.

The bible has not a lick of science in it. And whenever the bible supposed about anything like sunsets, it was always wrong. Science gave us the true answer. Remember Galileo Galilei.

Religion is already dead but it continues to survive solely dependent on those too lazy or unmotivated to learn about the truth. Learning the truth does require a good long effort. Religion is simply the easy cop out. The easy answer, the answer we all wish for earnestly.--------------Just b-e-l-i-e-v-e, have f-a-i-t-h.

.................................Personally, "I deny the Holy Spirit".

I was damned to Hell probably about twenty years ago according to the Holy bible.

I'm totally ok with this. In fact, I'm free from that bondage. I have much more important things to do in this life. One of those leading things is seeking the evident truth about this world. Early in that search I discarded the bible. I must say, the journey has been well worth the effort.

Bible&Science, these two don't mix.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 8 years ago

Agreed. I would add that part of the reason religion persists is also that political leaders use it (anti gay anti abortion anti evolution) to control lazy, ignorant people for unreligious ends (discriminate against gay, africans (slavery) women (abortion). It is discouraging to say the least. Imagine no religion.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

It's been said that "Religion is the sanctification of pre-existent prejudice."

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

There it is. Full circle. We can only Imagine. In today's world, there's much work to be done before the dream could come even close to ridding ourselves of superstition and supernatural beliefs. But, I could imagine such a world.

Religion is just a part of us growing up. It's an early stage of development. It's for the beginners, pondering the big questions, and demanding answers for things unanswerable. Then when we mature we realize we're involved in something so big that simple answers are no more than foolish speculation. It doesn't make it bad, actually the opposite. The mystery of life is an extremely beautiful amazing thing we participate in continuously yet we usually don't think of it that way. But that would a much longer conversation. I will leave it there.

Let's just say Gandhi was right when he said, the truth is inevitable. It never needs us to prop it up. But if we just choose to ignore or distort it is perilous only to us, it exists just the same.

Good Conversation, thanks!

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 8 years ago

cool. stay strong Support OWS