Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 14. (Read 6610 times)

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

You can't even show that 1+1=2, because it doesn't. Why not? Because numbers are abstract.

Does one apple plus one orange equal two fruit? No! Because languages are abstract ideas just like numbers.

One plus one never equals two, because everything is different than everything else... at least by the space that it occupies.

Why do we use 1 + 1 = 2 (math, in other words)? Because we can make things happen that are against nature. And ultimately doing so will destroy us all, and nature right along with us if nature can't destroy us first.

Did you even read what you quoted from wikipedia?

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

"a fact is an observation" (adjectives removed)

How is this not exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you keep saying?

Scientific Fact = objectively verifiable observation (repeatable experiments, et al)

I don't understand how you keep saying that facts are not observations, when your quote specifically says, "A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

What exactly do you not understand?

Frankly on this thread I have not seen much understanding either of the nature of science or religion. Although as you point out, the noise to signal ratio may be so high as to make it impossible.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.

Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21].....

Consistent with the idea of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden....

The scientific method[edit]
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method....

As an example, let's use our understanding of science to make a prediction. I will drop an apple, and it will fall. That is a prediction, not a fact. Yet it is the ability of science to accurately predict outcomes which is it's value.

EG cause and effect are verbs. Fact is a noun.

Religion doesn't appear until someone interprets their observation of facts.

Science theory is something that knowably is open to change. Therefore it is knowably not known to be fact.

When someone believes a science theory to be true and factual, he is placing it into the realm of religion for himself. Why? Because he knows that the only fact of the theoretical point is that it is a theory. So, he is basing his interpretation on the only fact available... that the science theory is factually known to not be a fact. For him the science theory point has become religion, even if it is not religion for others who do not believe that it is fact, but who only understand that it is theory.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

From Dictionary.com:
Notice that science can overlap engineering, and even religion a little, right in its direct and immediate definition.

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

I really agree on this explanation but to me  religion is faith-based while math/science is faith-based. I know the worshippers will give it different names as they want but their motive is always to seek help or thank the Almighty One.

Science is creating facts which we believe true because of creating basis while religion is believing what we cannot prove. Science is a creation of human believing to itself that can be ruined by another study, religion as well but religion cannot be destroyed by anyone else.

Abiogenesis has always been the biggest part of evolution. Evolution from inanimate to animate would be way more difficult than simply changing a little piece of animate. All of it is evolving, except that none of it happens. The only reason there is the separation is that abiogenesis is way too difficult because of the great number of positioning of atoms and molecules. Probability odds against natural abiogenesis show that it is impossible. Let's do the simple stuff, and worry about the complicated stuff, later.

Did you not see where you used the word "experiment," and then the phrase "no intelligence involved?" Are you really trying to say that scientists are unintelligent critters?

Amino acids are what? Oh, I get it. They are amino acids. I suppose when evolutionists get desperate enough, they will start to say that amino acids are life itself.

Part of your religion is to attempt to turn religion into science and science into religion, and then to say that they are completely different. Are you having trouble in any other parts of your life?

Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".

Abiogenesis has never been "a part of evolution"... abiogenesis is about the origin of life... evolution is about changes to life-forms over time... 2 completely different topics

Abiogenesis happened once (we assume), evolution happens continuously, every second of every day... totally not the same thing


Apparently you didn't read the experiment... no intelligence involved... it's simply chemicals in a jar where lightning changes the base chemicals into amino acids, the building blocks of life

Amino acids have been found inside meteorites from space... who put them there, God?
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html

Why would God put all this evidence for evolution everywhere?  Just to confuse scientists?  Wouldn't it make more sense for God to leave evidence for creationism instead of evidence for evolution?

Abiogenesis is simply a part of evolution. Trying to throw it into its own class, separate from evolution, simply shows how desperate evolutionists are to find something that shows that evolution exists. They take abiogenesis out to not have something else against the ridiculous idea of evolution.

Did you note that you said that there are experiments that show that abiogenesis is possible? These same experiments show that it takes intelligence to make abiogenesis. What would such intelligence be in nature? Are you trying to show that nature is way smarter, by multitudes of "smartness," than scientists are? I mean, scientists haven't made abiogenesis. They only show that it might be possible. They ain't smart enough to do it. But nature did it with great success, right?

Go ahead. Keep it up. Dig yourself into one hole after another. After all, it is your religion to do so >>> definition of religion #6 at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t.

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments

Lol, if the existence of God is purely nonsense then there is no ongoing debate that is happening right now? does that make sense?



Nonsense? as I have said if it is purely nonsense then there is no on going debate about the existence of god. Even some of the known philosophers and scientist believes in the existence of god from that fact again that they can't trace the core of life's existence.



Sorry your statement is just too deep for I only have basic knowledge towards english. Therefore, I don't know what are you talking about