Science=God, God=Science

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by iIuminaIi
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Eiensten

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einsten

"My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly." - Albert Einsten

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

A bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? Context?

In this very dishonestly created and edited (cherry picked) creationist clip, Dawkins was speculating on the very unlikely event of a form of "directed panspermia", not intelligent design. He makes it very clear repeatedly that "no one knows" how life originated.

edit on 19-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.

Well, atleast he said "Intelligent design" is Possibility...

Not soo cherry picked, dumphokes

Originally posted by iIuminaIi


Well, atleast he said "Intelligent design" is Possibility...

Not soo cherry picked, dumphokes

edit on 19-6-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)

= wishful thinking

Dawkins views on "intelligent design" are well known. Creationist propaganda doesn't change that.

I fear this is a "god of the gaps" sort of thread.

Science doesn't like those.

To the OP, you may like some works of Madame Blavatsky. Her work creates a synthesis between science, religion and philosophy which translates to Theosophy. Some of it is a bit off but there are certainly some nuggets of wisdom to be gleamed from there.

The whole issue I have here is, Both God and Science are manmade.

We created the concept of God, and the Concept of Science. Since we don't have the being we deem as God here with us saying the things God told us or has said. We only merely left with the understanding that everything we have come to understanding now, is man's doing, man's hardwork, and man's failures, no where in the history of man, have I seen God to of actually told us how things went down.

Even the bible is written by man to man of accounts of what man witnessed about God.

If God gave us freewill, yet still wanted us to know of God, but doesn't intervene due to freewill, that's what I call a Bad parent.

if anyone was to plop a child down on the earth, and leave it's called abandonment, neglect and endangerment not to mention isn't being a parent.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by iIuminaIi


Well, atleast he said "Intelligent design" is Possibility...

Not soo cherry picked, dumphokes

edit on 19-6-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)

= wishful thinking

Dawkins views on "intelligent design" are well known. Creationist propaganda doesn't change that.

Yep! According to YOU !!!!!

Originally posted by iIuminaIi

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by iIuminaIi


Well, atleast he said "Intelligent design" is Possibility...

Not soo cherry picked, dumphokes

edit on 19-6-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)

= wishful thinking

Dawkins views on "intelligent design" are well known. Creationist propaganda doesn't change that.

Yep! According to YOU !!!!!

No, according to Dawkins. His views on creationism/intelligent design are well known (perhaps not by you). Creationist propaganda hasn't changed these views. Read his website. Can you point out to me where he now puts his science aside and agrees that "god did it"?


richarddawkins.net...

"The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering."

Maybe God does equal Science because I believe God is just everything the universe consists of, and it can be proven with science that the universe and what it consists of actually does in fact exist

A question in my mind is -- Can science change? Some imply to me that science is written in stone (so to speak) but can science change with time? Is science constant?

Are the measurements of science of a million years ago the same as today? Can you prove that? No way can you prove that and to be honest with yourself you would have to admit several facts here. If you believed that science is constant then you would have to say that that is your belief as a scientist. You can not state that as a proven fact when you have no proof. Is the universe 14 billion years old? Once again you can not prove that as a proven fact as a scientist. Can a scientist prove that man evolved from a primate? Of course not. The best that science can do is to believe that man evolved from a primate.

The reason I say this is that if there was a big bang and everything was hot and small compared to today, then the substance of matter must have changed through evolution. If this universe changed through evolution then perhaps the tools of science changed also. If man evolved then the science of man had to change and therefore science is not written in stone. If this universe continues for another 14 billion years then science most certainly will change as well as the human species will change.

IF Moses did live and IF Moses did talk face to face with God then would that be religion? Maybe not in that day. IF Adam did did exist and walked and talked with God, would that be religion? Maybe not in that time. For people to believe that this happened is no different than a scientist believing that the world is 14 billion years old. So science should not proudly acclaim that they are somewhat special in intellect and have the key to knowl- edge when in fact they have their own religion called belief which they incorporate right along with fact. All science is doing is using the tools that have somehow materialized for them to use in this time frame. Tomorrow may change all of this just as it did 14 billion years ago ( as they believe).

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well I believe the sun and rest of the universe rotate around the earth. I am using a point of perspective as many people have done in the past. Sure I believe we spin around the sun, I know both perspectives and understand that both have merit depending on how we look at things. Armed with this knowledge of relative position I cannot say that the observer of the sun is wrong because he sees it moving that way. I cannot say that the person who says the earth rotates around the sun is right either because in many cases the point of perspective takes precedence over scientific fact. The sun does not really rise in the east and set in the west but science says it does. Science even gives times of sunrise, debunk that fallacy.

You are a little bit mistaken here. Science doesn't say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. That's what people say who see it everyday. Science says the earth rotates on an axis, which causes it to go from night to day and the sun APPEAR to rise in the east. It doesn't actually rise, that's just what us humans call it because that's how it looks. Yes, you can say the observer of the sun is wrong, because we have satellites in orbit and have sent probes all across the solar system which observe it. We know that the planets all revolve around the sun. You can't tell a person that the sun doesn't appear to rise in the east, because it clearly does, but it's an illusion because the earth is not stationary. The word sun rise also predates the scientific understanding of the solar system, but we are accustomed to the word so we still use it. Religion and science are fully compatible, but they are not the same thing, not even close.

Originally posted by Seede
A question in my mind is -- Can science change? Some imply to me that science is written in stone (so to speak) but can science change with time? Is science constant?

Are the measurements of science of a million years ago the same as today? Can you prove that? No way can you prove that and to be honest with yourself you would have to admit several facts here. .

Science is not set in stone or constant. It changes as new information is learned. Yes, there are universal laws that do not generally change, but it isn't impossible that they could. But that would probably mean the end of the universe and life as we know it. Science just gathers information and evidence about these things to give us a better understanding of the universe and how things work. Major things in science don't usually change, it's usually just the minor details and dates. It's not like science will go from the theory of evolution to creation overnight. If creation ends up being true, then evolution will be part of it, but science is still a very reliable method of gathering facts.

Is the universe 14 billion years old? Once again you can not prove that as a proven fact as a scientist.

Actually you can with the speed of light. If the universe hadn't been around at least 14 billion years, the light from the most distant galaxies would not have reached earth and we wouldn't be aware of their existence. If you are assuming the speed of light changes, you need to provide evidence because it's one of the most consistent facts of the universe.

Can a scientist prove that man evolved from a primate? Of course not. The best that science can do is to believe that man evolved from a primate.

Humans are primates. Of course we evolved from a primate. Do you think it's more realistic we evolved from lizards or amphibians? Yes it is the best known theory to explain diversity, but it's a slam dunk as the process can be observed in nature and a lab. That's how science, works, though, it doesn't seem like you're aware of that.

The reason I say this is that if there was a big bang and everything was hot and small compared to today, then the substance of matter must have changed through evolution.

Could you explain what you mean by "substance of matter"

If this universe changed through evolution then perhaps the tools of science changed also. If man evolved then the science of man had to change and therefore science is not written in stone. If this universe continues for another 14 billion years then science most certainly will change as well as the human species will change.

First, evolution is biological and applies to life only, not the entire universe. Yes everything changes in the universe, but in the current time we live, our measurements and studies are accurate and can be applied to make our lives better. Nobody that knows anything about science, says it can't change over time. It's far beyond a random "guess" however. Religion is the only guess. Science uses tangible evidence to draw conclusions, not emotional faith.

IF Moses did live and IF Moses did talk face to face with God then would that be religion? Maybe not in that day. IF Adam did did exist and walked and talked with God, would that be religion? Maybe not in that time. For people to believe that this happened is no different than a scientist believing that the world is 14 billion years old.

There's a HUGE difference. Science has facts to back it up, like the laws of physics and the speed of light. Moses and Adam have absolutely zero objective evidence behind them. To draw a comparison like that is beyond silly.

So science should not proudly acclaim that they are somewhat special in intellect and have the key to knowl- edge when in fact they have their own religion called belief which they incorporate right along with fact. All science is doing is using the tools that have somehow materialized for them to use in this time frame. Tomorrow may change all of this just as it did 14 billion years ago ( as they believe).

But what you are saying is a complete guess. It's not scientific. You are saying that all of a sudden the laws of physics could change without warning, when there's no reason at all to assume it. Science has been proven reliable to be the key to knowledge. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have computers and internet to even have this conversation. Comparing science to religion is ludicrous. Scientific theories start out as educated guesses, but as we discover more it can become fact or become falsified and dismissed. There is no evidence to suggest the laws of physics were ever changes. The earth revolves around the sun = fact. However it won't always be fact because the sun will one day become a red giant and engulf the earth and eventually die. That doesn't mean science was wrong.

reply to post by Barcs


Aristarchos thought the Sun was the center of all things when he lived sometimes around 260-270 BC. That's a long time ago. Other people thought the same way through history but the consensus was that they were wrong because everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. Just because most people thought something was right didn't make it real. If you call the National Weather Service and ask someone what time the sun rises they will tell you. It is a term used by the Scientific community. Most people know reality, I was just trying to show types of perceptions using different perceptions that overlap. Most people can't tell you which way the earth rotates without thinking a while. Clockwise or counterclockwise based on the North pole. That would make a good thread actually, and have them tell how long it took them to figure it out. Most people I talk to say the earth rotates opposite of what it does.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Barcs

 

Aristarchos thought the Sun was the center of all things when he lived sometimes around 260-270 BC. That's a long time ago. Other people thought the same way through history but the consensus was that they were wrong because everyone knew the sun revolved around the earth. Just because most people thought something was right didn't make it real.

It was mostly Europeans that subscribed to the flat earth / geocentric universe ideas, and they certainly weren't endorsed by science. Many cultures around the world actually believed the earth was round and went around the sun. Anybody that presented or discovered conflict ideas with that concept as defined by the bible, was tortured, killed or excommunicated. Prime example is Galileo. The dark ages were bad and science was not encouraged unless it agreed 100% with the scriptures. You're right. It's not about popular opinion, it's about scientific facts, and flat earth / geocentric universe had none behind them.

If you call the National Weather Service and ask someone what time the sun rises they will tell you. It is a term used by the Scientific community.

That doesn't matter. Sunrise is the term we use to describe the rotation of the earth and is relative to your location on the planet. It never "rises" in different places at the same time. That doesn't mean science says it actually rises in the sky because of outdated terminology that we still use today. That's just words. We like labels so we give things names.

Most people know reality, I was just trying to show types of perceptions using different perceptions that overlap. Most people can't tell you which way the earth rotates without thinking a while. Clockwise or counterclockwise based on the North pole. That would make a good thread actually, and have them tell how long it took them to figure it out. Most people I talk to say the earth rotates opposite of what it does.

My point was that individual perception doesn't equal or deny scientific facts. It's obvious the earth rotates from west to east, you can tell by the sun's position in the sky. I think that means counter clockwise when looking at the north pole. I'm just glad the dark ages of knowledge suppression are over, although there are plenty of creationists out there that still won't let it go.

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld


Probably all branches on the same tree.

Connected but different enough that we notice it, but at it's roots it all has the same beginning.

reply to post by Barcs


Clockwise

reply to post by rickymouse


en.wikipedia.org...

Earth's rotation is the rotation of the solid Earth around its own axis. The Earth rotates towards the east. As viewed from the North Star Polaris, the Earth turns counter-clockwise.

Perhaps it was actually you that described it wrong, not everyone you ask.

reply to post by Barcs


When you ask a question, the right answer is the answer to the question as it's asked. I didn't ask a textbook question, I asked a point of perspective question. If I said looking south it would have been counterclockwise. Intelligence is the ability to figure things out. Knowledge is information sequences that have been memorized. People are being conditioned to have knowledge and given certifications they perceive are certifications of intelligence for this knowledge. Intelligence without much knowledge is just common sense or streetwise.

Actually you can with the speed of light. If the universe hadn't been around at least 14 billion years, the light from the most distant galaxies would not have reached earth and we wouldn't be aware of their existence. If you are assuming the speed of light changes, you need to provide evidence because it's one of the most consistent facts of the universe.
[/quote)
Science cannot prove that there are not variables in measurement throughout the universe. We have variables in light measurements right here on earth. Speed of light in vacuum is 90 km/s slower than speed of light in earth’s air. What science does not know for a fact is the density of dark matter throughout the universe or the effect of chaotic heavenly bodies in the universe. We will never know unless you have two points to measure or have proven this physically. As far as having evidence to this theory is concerned, we are now working on that very same fact through the Cern scientists. It may be accepted as a fact insofar as we have used it today but it could be vastly different tomorrow. It is theorized by some that gravity, atmosphere and the speed of rotation of the earth has changed from its origin.

TextCould you explain what you mean by "substance of matter"

In the first place I do not believe that this world was created in a big bang but suppose it was. The matter that was produced or caused the big bang might be changed as the intense heat could have destroyed some minerals or created some minerals as well as other substances. I firmly believe that the universe existed when this world came into existence just as the other planets and stars came into existence. That does not conflict with Creationists or the Hebrew bible because the Hebrew bible says nothing about the universe being created along with the world. Matter can have many different substances in my understanding but not being a scientist I may have the entire concept wrong.

TextHumans are primates. Of course we evolved from a primate. Do you think it's more realistic we evolved from lizards or amphibians? Yes it is the best known theory to explain diversity, but it's a slam dunk as the process can be observed in nature and a lab. That's how science, works, though, it doesn't seem like you're aware of that.

I stand corrected on my unintentional use of the word primate. Of course I realize that we are primates and I should have made it clear of what I meant. Rephrasing my statement.. Science can prove (in the lab only) that a gene from the monkey family can be split. Science ends right there and theory takes over. Can those same scientists state as a fact that it was an accident? Can they say that this so called accident happened X amount of years ago? Can they then say as a fact that this accident evolved into modern man? Now in all honesty you can never convince me that that is even remotely a slam dunk fact. You wrote above that this is the best known theory to explain diversity and you called it Theory yourself.

TextThere's a HUGE difference. Science has facts to back it up, like the laws of physics and the speed of light. Moses and Adam have absolutely zero objective evidence behind them. To draw a comparison like that is beyond silly.

You call it silly today but just maybe one day it can be recalled both audio ably and visually. Then would it be silly? If it could be recalled and shown I believe that it still would not produce God and therefore would not be accepted by most people. Therefore it would remain a religion. Just a thought—

Well Barc, I enjoyed your input and wisdom and believe it or not you have taught me quite a bit. I appreciate your knowledge and wish you the best. .

TextSpeed of light in vacuum is 90 km/s slower than speed of light in earth’s air.

reply to post by Seede


Barcs - Must correct myself again. I meant to say that the speed of light in vacuum is 90 km/s faster (not slower) than the speed of light in earth's air.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Barcs

 

When you ask a question, the right answer is the answer to the question as it's asked. I didn't ask a textbook question, I asked a point of perspective question. If I said looking south it would have been counterclockwise. Intelligence is the ability to figure things out. Knowledge is information sequences that have been memorized. People are being conditioned to have knowledge and given certifications they perceive are certifications of intelligence for this knowledge. Intelligence without much knowledge is just common sense or streetwise.

Most people can't tell you which way the earth rotates without thinking a while. Clockwise or counterclockwise based on the North pole.

This was your "question". You said based on the North pole. What does that even mean? Clearly you're just asking a trick question that you can try to flip to mean either one in an attempt to say I'm wrong. Science isn't like that. It is specific and to the point, and that's why I specifically answered. Looking down at the north pole it spins counter clockwise. Looking at the south pole it spins clockwise. You didn't say looking north. You said based on, which generally means from the perspective of being in that location. From MY perspective it rotates from west to east, not clockwise OR counterclockwise, since I live in America. Science isn't word games.