It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Stormdancer777
There's a huge distinction which you are missing. The distinction is that legitimate scientists who follow one religion or another don't go into their lab with the answers from the Bible and work backwards trying to fit the data to validate the Bible. Francis Collins said that he sees god in his lab every day - but he's not looking to stamp out modern science in the process like Creationists. Just because a particular scientist is a devout Christian doesn't mean that he or she is required to skew the scientific evidence to prove a point. On the contrary, the scientists on your list understood what OBJECTIVE evidence is - if they didn't they would have never come up with reproducible results.
And although the majority of Nobel Prize winners may be Christian, this is a more significant statistic:
"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 850 individuals, of whom at least 20% were Jews or of Jewish descent, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population, (or 1 in every 500 people). Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% of medicine, 26% of Physics, 19% of Chemistry, 13% of Literature and 9% of all peace awards."
There's no conflict between religion and science if you understand that one is a belief system which requires no proof while the other is an objective, inquiring system requiring proof and reproducibility.
The conflict comes when religion tries to force its unprovable beliefs into the natural world of science. That's the battle royale.
originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Phantom423
dating archeological is different. We have evidence that forms the dating technology that adequately is related to most of the time frame. Examining something from three thousand years ago and using that to find something up to sixty thousand years ago is realistic. Now using that three thousand year old evidence to figure out something millions of years ago is not realistic. We do not know all of the conditions of the world in between. For all we know, there could have been a massive outburst of the sun half a million years ago or we got belted with radioactive meteors. We could have had a restructuring of the crust which released who knows what. Science does not know for sure what happened in the past. But of course many scientists believe they know. Now, I think in the next hundred years they will learn more.
Why is archeology different? Dating techniques are applicable across a wide range of disciplines, including archeology.
I can't stand when people treat theories like facts. A theory is a theory. Testing procedures are designed to prove theories, not actually find the truth. If you design a testing procedure to show something you think is true, it can distort the results and all the theories that are created from the original theory. All the testing procedures used to date things use conditions that we assume were present in times long ago. We do not know the conditions during the days of dinosaurs, we do not know the conditions of the time after the dinosaurs died off.
You're wrong on all counts. Testing procedures vary in their application. Radiometric, nuclear spin and spectroscopic techniques are simply part of the toolbox of science. The results have to be analyzed objectively and must be reproducible. The same methods are used in modern medicine like MRI and ultrasound. Would you question them as well?
I do not believe in creationism but I do not believe the testing procedures that they tout as accurate are really accurate either. We do not have a baseline sample directly obtained form a million years ago picked fresh off the earth with no aging involved. Now if someone wants to invent a time machine and acquire a sample, then I will evaluate and possibly accept these figures that science gives.
You would have to demonstrate by example that testing procedures are not accurate. What's your evidence for that. And yes, there are baseline samples which are used for reference.
I quit, like I said it doesn't really matter. I can't think of one real reason other than people priding themselves on this knowledge which makes it important. I do not repeat something like a parrot if I do not feel it is true. I don't care who tells me it is true, if I don't research all aspects of the subject, I will not tell someone it is true.
If you notice, I am not saying that this is not possible, I am challenging the validity of the testing procedures and I am also challenging the amount of money being spent on something that does not matter. Just because consensus of the time is that this matters, I do not have to accept this. Our country is seventeen trillion in the hole, I do not think anyone is looking at whether something is necessary in the first place.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Phantom423
These same scientists understand that their work has to be backed up by evidence. Not one of them would refute that. So why then, when it comes down to the lens they see the world through, they no longer require proof. I would tend to associate this dissonance with indoctrination at a young age. Religion is mostly accepted in the world therefor strengthening that bond and assuring it's hold in almost every field you look into.
Those who won nobels did not win them for their religious merit. They won for being innovative in their field of scientific study.
There are plenty of people who are critical of Collins. He has just learned to not interject his beliefs into his work. As it should be. That doesn't stop him from publishing non scientific views and then backing it up with the fact that he is a scientist. That is bad science and extremely dishonest.
Why do you keep stating that a religious belief system requires no proof. Of course it requires proof. To good scientists. Therefor they are bad scientists in that respect.
Because religion is more than a set of beliefs. It's also cultural, historical, traditional, mythological. It's a way of life for most people who practice a religion. Why does that require proof? It doesn't. And no one should have to defend their beliefs just because they are a scientist. I do yoga and I'm a scientist. Yoga has a mystical component. Can I prove those components with data? Of course not. Am I concerned that my chakras are going to influence my interpretation of the data I accumulate in the lab? No.
It's not that religion requires no proof, it's that there is no proof for it, so they just sweep that part under the rug, and now you are claiming that it no longer requires proof? How convenient for you. I could assert that physics requires no proof. Just look around you. There's physical stuff, but i guess that would be proof huh?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The simple fact is that you can put all the information and facts in front of people that you want, but you can't make them learn if they don't want to. .
originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: SonoftheSun
Those 4 in 10 Americans are retarded. I respect the right to observe any faith you want to practice but a person's faith must change when hard evidence contradicts mythology. Social policy should not kowtow to zealotry. If you could reason with a religious person religion wouldn't exist. I agree with the govt. in this matter. Fundamentalist religions are extremely dangerous and should be monitored.