I hope these new discoverys will........................

Archived here are older posts which are no longer relevant or were redundant.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

DustTrailFinder

Post by DustTrailFinder »

Sun Tzu II wrote:I closed my eyes for a moment and this place turns into a religious forum :shock:
Sun Tzu II, please don't close your eyes again! Who knows what might happen? :lol:

DustTrailFinder

Post by DustTrailFinder »

There are some pretty good comments from scientists about religion and science on this webpage, if you're interested:

http://www.earthsky.org/features/carbon ... mments.php

Sun Tzu II
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 3:11 am
Location: Pearl of the Orient

Post by Sun Tzu II »

Very interesting article indeed, although I'm not Christian (or even a religious person)
Amazing how much interest specks of dust can spark

DustTrailFinder

Post by DustTrailFinder »

Sun Tzu II wrote:Very interesting article indeed, although I'm not Christian (or even a religious person)
I thought it was a good article, too. Lots of opinions and ideas to think about.

I consider myself an agnostic. I admit that there may be a being greater than us, but I don't believe any religion really knows who that being is or what it is like. When used by the believer who finds comfort and purpose from their religious beliefs and lets it guide them to living a better life, it is a good thing. Some use it to divide and separate people into an "us" category and a "them" category. I think that is very wrong.

joecor99
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 6:50 am
Location: Seattle, Washington
Contact:

Post by joecor99 »

Ferrum wrote:My personal opinion is that the question of ‘god’ has little or no place in science, and is best left to an individual and their quest for meaning.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Many scientists throughout history, including Isaac Newton, considered by most to be THE greatest scientist in histroy, have been firm believers in God and creation. For me, science is a way of studying God's creation. I see absolutely no conflict with a creationist taking part in this endeavor.
And God said, Let there be light: And there was light.

Gen. 1:3

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Post by fjgiie »

Hi Joe,
"I see absolutely no conflict with a creationist taking part in this endeavor."
You are so right. There are so many beliefs out in the world today. There is no reason for the personal and scientific beliefs to conflict. Your eyes, I hope, are just as good as mine, and your curiosity is probably greater. So let's work together on this wonderful project to discover a little about the world. I am a strict atheist, but very seldom does religion come up when actually working on projects. I pray no conflicts arise here.

Ferrum
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:59 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ferrum »

Studying god's creation is all well and good joe, but most often science shows that our universe, and ourselves, could have been formed without the influence of a higher power, and despite the personal beliefs of great scientists hundreds of years ago, that doesn't change the fact that scientific consensus does become more advanced as time goes on. If the bible were to be taken literally, then our most basic understanding about many areas of science would be invalidated.

However, I never felt that there was a conflict with a creationist taking part in this project, and never insinuated such. I simply wondered how you would react if the discovery of interstellar particles was used to further the "atheists" views and arguments. If you are attempting to use science to prove that a higher being must exist, then why would you partake in an project whose results could be used to conflict with that opinion? As I stated previously several times, I welcome the opportunity to work with you on this project, but it always disturbs me a bit when one believes science and religion should be combined in any objective (particularly a volunteer project which could illustrate the exact opposite).

I think a quote by Carl Batt sums it up best. "Facts are not the absolute truth but they are also as good as it gets until proven wrong. Faith should not be used to prove science wrong and science should not be used to discount faith." Your personal beliefs are your own, and I would never begrudge you your faith. As always, just my opinions.
The integral sec y dy
From zero to one-sixth of pi
Is the log to base e
Of the square root of three.
Um...times the square root of the fourth power of i.

Aquila Hawk
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Delmar, NY
Contact:

Post by Aquila Hawk »

Ferrum wrote:Studying god's creation is all well and good joe, but most often science shows that our universe, and ourselves, could have been formed without the influence of a higher power, and despite the personal beliefs of great scientists hundreds of years ago, that doesn't change the fact that scientific consensus does become more advanced as time goes on. If the bible were to be taken literally, then our most basic understanding about many areas of science would be invalidated.
I actually have to respectfully disagree you. If there is one thing I learned in Evolution of Scientific thought, it's that science is really bad at disproving stuff. It can prove things... until a better theory is found. Religion has a strength in belief, but tends to be rigid and lose sight over time. Plus, they have an almost fad quality to them. I'm not trying to dis religion or science any. I am a science major and used to be very religious, but they both have stregnths and weaknesses. One thing they do have in common is that they are both heavily influenced and based on philosophy.

That being said, the more we find out in science, the more questions we get. Take the Big Bang for example. The Big Bang created all matter in the known universe in a fraction of a second. Ok... so what initiated the Big Bang? Basically, you can't count out a creator god or higher being based on increasingly more complicated scientific knowledge.
Everyone talks about SOH CAH TOA, but no one ever talks about CHO SHA CAO.

DustTrailFinder

Post by DustTrailFinder »

I had hoped that we would not engage upon this subject to this extent, but it will evidently not go away. I don't want anyone to think that I am attempting to stop it, as if I could, but I do hope that everyone here will respect each others viewpoints and keep the intercourse respectful and reasonable, like it has been so far. I've seen too many other boards on this subject that have degenerated into meaningless dialogues that benefits no one. I'm pretty sure that most of us who have come here to volunteer for this project wouldn't let that happen, but there is always the chance that some might or are only attracted to a new board and not devoted to the project. In that case I believe that the mods and the administrator on this site will summarily execute the perpetrators(nics)!

Nikita
DustMod
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Nikita »

DustTrailFinder wrote:I had hoped that we would not engage upon this subject to this extent, but it will evidently not go away. I don't want anyone to think that I am attempting to stop it, as if I could, but I do hope that everyone here will respect each others viewpoints and keep the intercourse respectful and reasonable, like it has been so far. I've seen too many other boards on this subject that have degenerated into meaningless dialogues that benefits no one. I'm pretty sure that most of us who have come here to volunteer for this project wouldn't let that happen, but there is always the chance that some might or are only attracted to a new board and not devoted to the project. In that case I believe that the mods and the administrator on this site will summarily execute the perpetrators(nics)!
Nicely said! I also want to compliment those who have taken opposing views and have been accepting of them! I also believe that no matter what we find, we will find many more questions than answers! Hopefully we will find elements we didn't expect and have to ask why. This will not in any way end the debate of science vs. religion, nor can we end it on this forum. Those lucky enough to find a speck of star dust will have the opportunity to express their views when they name it - if they choose. Also, we can hope that in the excitement of having this project start, this will be forgotten in the mix of new topics!
From dust we come

Sundevil
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Sundevil »

I still like the theory (fact?) that we are all just chemical reactions. The big bang was a chemical reaction, the sun is a chemical reaction, thinking about what to type is a chemical reaction.

We might not ever understand how everything came to be. Where did all the matter and energy come from in the first place?

Some people think that life comes from a creator, I think that life comes from a molecules reacting and combining and multiplying from food and water. Throw a few extra electrons in there to create some brain waves and a heart beat, and you can explain life on a molecular level. It might take a few billion years of trial and error to create an intelligent life form though.

DustTrailFinder

Post by DustTrailFinder »

Sundevil wrote:I still like the theory (fact?) that we are all just chemical reactions. The big bang was a chemical reaction, the sun is a chemical reaction, thinking about what to type is a chemical reaction.

We might not ever understand how everything came to be. Where did all the matter and energy come from in the first place?

Some people think that life comes from a creator, I think that life comes from a molecules reacting and combining and multiplying from food and water. Throw a few extra electrons in there to create some brain waves and a heart beat, and you can explain life on a molecular level. It might take a few billion years of trial and error to create an intelligent life form though.
The "big bang" and sun are not a "chemical reaction." If the sun, or any star were, then they would burn out almost as soon as they form. I am thoroughly convinced that this is why we should not actually debate this subject more, since either we don't know enough about the science or we don't know enough about religion to be effective nor can we possibly relate to both of them in a meaningful way. That is not meant to condemn your knowledge or mine or that of the best scientists or theologians.

DustTrailFinder

Post by DustTrailFinder »

Sundevil wrote:life comes from a molecules reacting and combining and multiplying from food and water.
Forgot to mention that "food" is life, so life cannot come from it, since it has to already exist. Maybe you mean life can exist on certain nutrients it can obtain from the environment around it. Technically, that is not "food," but I could understand your meaning in that context.

Sundevil
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Sundevil »

Maybe I should have said fusion was going on in the Sun. I figure it is a kind of chemical reaction.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/fusionsteps.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/fusion.html

The same protons, neutrons & electrons that existed in the big bang should be still here today. The types of elements and chemicals they make up might be different, but it is very hard to destroy matter.

Ferrum
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:59 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ferrum »

Aquila, obviously science can almost never disprove the existence of an entity, whether it is a god of christian, hindu, or norse mythology (or just bigfoot). However, it has shown how our universe COULD have been formed without the intervention of a higher power.

Most importantly, whether one believes that the big bang can be explained through brane theory or god himself, this does not change the fact that, if taken literally, the bible invalidates the voluminous amounts of evidence that our universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state around 13.7 billion years ago.
The integral sec y dy
From zero to one-sixth of pi
Is the log to base e
Of the square root of three.
Um...times the square root of the fourth power of i.

Locked