Science-Religion. Which wins?

[Millancad]

<p>^^H gave me a much more generous offer than any other school. MIT gave me the least money of all, actually.</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>

Agreed. Mifune dwarfs Sir Humphrey Appleby’s speech considerably.

Lulz, I expressed similar sentiments earlier in this thread.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>^Twin thought! :D</p>

<p>

I would also probably start crying if I got involved in this discussion .

</p>

<p>You wouldn’t cry–your eyes would have fallen out from reading the vast quantity of text in each post by then. :)</p>

[DwightEisenhower]

<p>

Agreed. Mifune dwarfs Sir Humphrey Appleby’s speech considerably.

</p>

<p>“He that uses many words for explaining any subject, doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.” - John Ray</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>@Silverturtle for an income of over 140k? I would be amazed. If I can get merit aid at high quality public institutions, I’ll take the merit aid.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Silverturtle for an income of over 140k?

</p>

<p>My income is much higher, yet I shall be contributing nothing more than $9,500 towards my education in the coming year. Granted, I have some extenuating circumstances, but their aid is extremely generous nonetheless.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

for an income of over 140k?

</p>

<p>I might be slightly misrecalling this, but I believe Harvard claims that it asks for only about 10% contribution (on average) from families who make from $120,000-$180,000 a year.</p>

<p>(It seems we have departed slightly from the topic. :))</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

It seems we have departed slightly from the topic.

</p>

<p>Grandpa mifune will have that corrected shortly.</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>I mean in that case, I’ll go. But to Harvard for CS… hmm. Well I could then change schools for my graduate and doctoral programs.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>I’m sure Harvard’s CS program is sufficiently strong to get you into a top graduate program.</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>True that. I personally want to leave the east coast,however. Been here my entire life.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>Stanford is great for CS and has financial aid almost as good as Harvard’s.</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>Exact reason why I’m favoring it right now.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>Stanford is actually judged by the ARWU to be better than Harvard and MIT in CS: [ARWU</a> SUBJECT 2009 Computer Science](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2009.jsp).</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>I like how the top 5 I’m really favoring right now.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOEz9aPZNY&feature=player_embedded]This[/url”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOEz9aPZNY&feature=player_embedded]This[/url</a>] has a bit more relevance towards the topic. I find it to be an excellent summation of my views.</p>

[mifune]

<p>Again, I do not presently have the time to peruse the latest responses. But I hope to reply tomorrow.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>Sorry for my slow response, I was away from internet for a couple days.</p>

<p>

Cosmology is not at the same epistemological point as biology. However, Darwinian evolution and the process of natural selection teach us to treat any design or magical creation phenomenon in other realms of science as very spurious indeed.

</p>

<p>In other words, while the concept of an infinite designer is rationally equivalent to the concept of an infinite reality with no designer, you believe that the supposed* falsity of the previous theory of creation provides grounds for rejecting this new one?</p>

<p>*Leaving it undefined at present whether it actually was false. Your theory states that it was.</p>

<p>

By using the Christian bible and assuming its assertions to stand as truths. Any document that uses some transcendent being to superficially describe what is observable is not verifiable.

</p>

<p>When have I based any of my arguments on Origins on any quotes in the bible? Please quote them to me if I have.</p>

<p>

You do not have verifiable evidence at your disposal. You use a book that is not any more justifiably accurate than any other piece of fiction. Curiously, faith operates on a non-empirical, non-rational basis, yet it attempts to dabble in “explaining” empirical phenomena when it has absolutely no validity to do so. In essence, it tinkers with the incorporeal and the nonphysical; thus, it should be invalidated as an authority concerning evidence-based pursuits and should remain entirely separate and afar from such.

</p>

<p>I have seen numerous examples in my life and in the lives of others of the positive effect of the Christian faith. But as I have not based my arguments on Origins on my faith, that is irrelevant.</p>

<p>

Also, MosbyMarion, I assume, with your 6,000-year-old Earth “deduction,” that you deny the existence of the dinosaurs?

</p>

<p>Why should I? I’m not saying that everything dated past 6,000 years didn’t happen, I’m saying that the dating methods are likely to be flawed.</p>

<p>

It certainly is not unconfirmed…

</p>

<p>I’m aware of the supposed evidence and the more I examine it the less valid it appears to me. For example: The bird Archaeopteryx. At first glance, it looks like half-bird, half-reptile. On second glance, it has fully formed feathers, various birdlike features, and teeth. It begins to appear more like a variety of bird, that inherited feathers from its ancestors, just like all birds. A creature with feathery scales would be more convincing to me than a creature with feathers and scales.</p>

<p>Then there is the problem of symbiotic creatures and complimentary behavior/trait sets. Without the adaptations of a long tongue and a shock-absorbing head, it would be a waste of time for a woodpecker to peck holes in trees. Without predator fish’s instinct to not harm cleaner fish, it would be suicidal for those fish to have an instinct to swim into predator fish’s mouths.</p>

<p>then there is the genetics of the issue: all the species we can observe today are losing information, not gaining it.</p>

<p>I believe there is enough reasonable doubt that people like me deserve the same respect we offer to people like you.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

It is completely fair to define religion as a system of faith and worship of a controlling power that is established on nonmaterial conviction rather than proof. Given that, it has no fundamental basis in scientific pursuits.

</p>

<p>Very well, but then my worldview is not based on “religion”.</p>

<p>

No, you do not; you firmly base your beliefs on an assumptive and non-demonstrable format with absolutely no defense in a rational, empirical method of thought since you fundamentally dismiss the true evidence available to humanity.

</p>

<p>My system of science is based on these non-demonstrable assumptions:</p>

<p>1: The human mind is capable of meaningful thought.</p>

<p>2: The world can be expected to behave in predictable patterns.</p>

<p>

More precisely, science, quite obviously, only observes physical matter. From where is this matter derived? Two scientifically derived facts, mass-energy equivalence and the first law of thermodynamics, support the possibility that all matter once existed purely in its energy form and has existed for eternity following the simplification that “energy is neither created nor destroyed.” Energy may be potentially explainable as an inherent consequence of state of the very existence of an existence – a ground-state rationalization for the presence of a void (what exists in the absence of vacuity?). However, when one employs a creative, complex force that is simply there, one must explain who designed the designer and who designed the designer of the designer, and so forth. In essence, one is providing himself with more ineffective questions that, if confronted, receive blanketed answer after blanketed answer. Since they are not, and the idea that a living, superior being is eternal, it ducks the same question. Nothing is being explained or solved with any bit of resolution.

</p>

<p>Nothing is being more explained by a “ground-state rationalization” that the world is just here. The very fact of existence is logically impossible. It is not much use to reject the existence of a creator on logical grounds.</p>

<p>

Thanks.

</p>

<p>You’re welcome. I wish you’d show me the same respect. And I also wish you would read and address the paragraph before that.</p>

<p>

Radiometric dating uses a mathematical relationship to quantitatively compare the decayed amount of a substance relative to the parameter of a demonstrated half-life. It is an objective and completely replicable method of determining age.

</p>

<p>Radiometric dating requires these assumptions:</p>

<p>1: The initial concentration of parent isotope is known.
2: The initial concentration of child isotope is known.
3: The rate of decay is constant.
4: No parent isotope has been added.
5: No parent isotope has been removed.
6: No child isotope has been added.
7: No child isotope has been removed.</p>

<p>Many of these can be invalid assumptions.</p>

[cartesianpopcorn]

<p>I’m not a fan of organized religion, but I think we all need spirituality. Without it, what are we, just going through the mechanical motions of life? </p>

<p>So I’ll substitute spirituality for religion in this argument, and to me the question becomes invalid. It’s like asking, science-food. which wins? They are separate parts of one’s life, and both are essential.</p>