The scary, the strange, the paranormal...

[Andy BB]

To be fair Andy this comes up whenever religion and science are mentioned in the same breath. What science doesn't allow for is an element of faith. I have a science background but can also see the benefit of faith. I don't feel that something should necessarily be proven to be believed. for example in a court of law the jury makes a judgement by concensus. That concensus being that more believe the accused did (or didn't do it) than the other way round.

I've have yet to be given a satisfying answer to what was in place before the big bang. The current hypothesis of "there was matter and there was anti-matter" simply does not cut it with me. I call whatever was before God and will do until science or something else shows me different. This still allows an acceptance, and if you like faith in science, it just means that for me I am not claiming science is the be all and end all of explaining what goes on.

I recently had a similar discussion with a friend re "love" which he scientifically dismissed as a variety of hormonal and chemical goings on, he was not best pleased when I pointed out that the valentine's day dinner he'd taken his missus on was a sham because of his own theories, so it cuts both ways

PS Pastafrianism is cool!

You said above that "What science doesn't allow for is an element of faith" And this to me seems a critical point. If you inject faith into science (ie ignore the scientific method) you no longer have science. Just because a child is brainwashed to believe in God/Quetzlcoatl or Father Christmas, doesn't mean he exists - just that the "believer" has faith that he does. Science doesn't do faith - it looks at facts, prods, pokes and tests them. Sure it doesn't have all the answers, but its looking for them, rather than not bothering because the "answer" is God!

 

[ex member coconino]

You said above that "What science doesn't allow for is an element of faith" And this to me seems a critical point. If you inject faith into science (ie ignore the scientific method) you no longer have science. Just because a child is brainwashed to believe in God/Quetzlcoatl or Father Christmas, doesn't mean he exists - just that the "believer" has faith that he does. Science doesn't do faith - it looks at facts, prods, pokes and tests them. Sure it doesn't have all the answers, but its looking for them, rather than not bothering because the "answer" is God!

Amen!

 

[zarkwon]

Prove me wrong, you can't, so in this case I will bow down to 'Yours is bigger than mine'

It's your proposition mate. You prove it. Just a single shred of empirical evidence from anywhere ever throughout the history of mankind will do. Just one. No? That's what I thought.

 

[zarkwon]

To be fair Andy this comes up whenever religion and science are mentioned in the same breath. What science doesn't allow for is an element of faith. I have a science background but can also see the benefit of faith. I don't feel that something should necessarily be proven to be believed. for example in a court of law the jury makes a judgement by concensus. That concensus being that more believe the accused did (or didn't do it) than the other way round.

I've have yet to be given a satisfying answer to what was in place before the big bang. The current hypothesis of "there was matter and there was anti-matter" simply does not cut it with me. I call whatever was before God and will do until science or something else shows me different. This still allows an acceptance, and if you like faith in science, it just means that for me I am not claiming science is the be all and end all of explaining what goes on.

I recently had a similar discussion with a friend re "love" which he scientifically dismissed as a variety of hormonal and chemical goings on, he was not best pleased when I pointed out that the valentine's day dinner he'd taken his missus on was a sham because of his own theories, so it cuts both ways

PS Pastafrianism is cool!

It's not a sham. Why just because there is nothing spirit or supernatural about it would you think love is a sham? To understand the unlikely intricacy and beauty of how we got here and to marvel at the fact we are capable of love etc is far more awesome to me than some nonsensical fairytale leftover from the infancy of mankind.

 

[John Fenna]

This is starting to degenerate into an anti religious rant...
and this is against the rules so I (of no religion but oposed to the blind acceptance of scientific dismissal of faith/religion) am bowing out before the thread is locked and yellow cards issued.
There are things science can not explain - there are explainations some scientists cannot accept.
Have fun!

 

[_scorpio_]

i shouldnt comment because i have just read Derren Brown's "tricks of the mind" and i will end up insulting christians, or any religion for that matter, and anyone who believes in something "because they really feel it is true".
all stories about anything that is worth telling someone is exaggerated in one way or another and boring yet very relevant bits are left out.
why could it not be a fast plane in the 50s? even spitfires at that time were able to go about 500mph.

 

[santaman2000]

i shouldnt comment because i have just read Derren Brown's "tricks of the mind" and i will end up insulting christians, or any religion for that matter, and anyone who believes in something "because they really feel it is true".
all stories about anything that is worth telling someone is exaggerated in one way or another and boring yet very relevant bits are left out.
why could it not be a fast plane in the 50s? even spitfires at that time were able to go about 500mph.

I'm not sure how that's insulting to a religious group. This seems more like a conflict between a scientific (local science) explanation or an extra-terrestrial one. I'm not seeing where religion is involved.

 

[rik_uk3]

It's your proposition mate. You prove it. Just a single shred of empirical evidence from anywhere ever throughout the history of mankind will do. Just one. No? That's what I thought.

You still can't disprove it though now can you ?

I'm following John out of here before the weekend 'holiday passes' are handed out http://www.veoh.com/watch/v836855TBwa26tD

 

[mwelch8404]

Disclaimer: I am a “believer” in both evolution and creationism. Yeah, maybe I’m psychotic.

Just a few notes, since I don’t wanna jump into the middle, as it were.
You can’t “prove a negative” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argume..._absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence

Now, physicists tell us, “things” can also be two places at the same time.

Hubble and Einstein – the red shift “proved” the expanding universe – a least so far as we’ve been able to see. It’s why we now have Doppler radar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_shift

Theory: Both evolution and relativity are still theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Evolution: it “looks” good, but still hasn’t been proven. Anthropologists are still arguing about inbreeding or not between Neanderthal’s and H. Sap. For example. For this one wiki it yourself. There are eleventy-one references just on wiki. As far as human evolution, there 13 x10 ^24 “theories.” ;-)

You don’t need faster than light travel to travel huge distances “faster than light.” You just “go around…” ;-)

Science - the bad rep started in the 1960s – ‘70s with the “modernists” rejecting the empiricists. IMO, A lot of this was PC and based on “social” constructs.

Eratosthenes (MY FAVOURITE circa 276-195 bce) “He was the first person to calculate the circumference of the earth by using a measuring system using stades, or the length of stadiums during that time period (with remarkable accuracy). He was the first person known to have proven that the Earth was round, though prior astronomers, such as Aristarchus of Samos knew, or at least assumed, that the Earth was spherical.[citation needed] He was the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (also with remarkable accuracy). He may also have accurately calculated the distance from the earth to the sun and invented the leap day.[4] He also created a map of the world based on the available geographical knowledge of the era. In addition, Eratosthenes was the founder of scientific chronology; he endeavored to fix the dates of the chief literary and political events from the conquest of Troy.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Aristarchus (310 bce or thereabouts) - Heliocentric solar system… Measured the distance to the moon, sun.

Mark

 

[RonW]

I think this thread should be split up, because sience vs. religion is not what this thread is supposed to be about, correct??

Plus I detect an increasing level of "Do not! Do too!"-debating.....

 

[zarkwon]

Oh no you don't

 

[zarkwon]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt Mwelch. The scientific meaning of the word Theory is not the same as the everyday colloquial meaning.

 

[zarkwon]

Science Vs Supernatural will always attract the god question. There has been some good debate though. If you are not interested or think the discussion not to your liking then by all means stop reading. Players petitioning the ref for yellow cards for others is frowned upon, to continue your analogy. Especially when they are not even playing fair and appear only to be on the pitch to heckle the players. Walking off the pitch when being outplayed is fine if you like but then calling for the game to be stopped is just bad form.

 

[santaman2000]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt Mwelch. The scientific meaning of the word Theory is not the same as the everyday colloquial meaning.

Evolution has been substantiated not proven (a very fine difference granted and FWIW I believe in evolution) There are, as Mwelch pointed out however, several theories of eveolution rather than one (at least several variations of the theory) Darwin's original concept of slow and gradual was complicated with the discovery of several mass extinctions; mostly now explained by various catostophic events. As far as the scientific meaning of "theory" vs the everyday meaning; Actually it IS the same for both.

 

[mwelch8404]

Zarkwon,

Evolution of Species, yes. Human evolution, as in parallel evolution, evolution from apes, evolution from Neandethals, etc not so much. Which is why, I must admit, I posted: "For this one wiki it yourself. There are eleventy-one references just on wiki. As far as human evolution, there 13 x10 ^24 “theories.” ;-)'


As far as theroy, I referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory from wiki - it specifically discusses scientifc theory, modelling, scientific laws, etc.

When my daughter gets back with an Intro to Anthro book she wandered off with, I'll post the citation for the book. It's a pretty good one - which means he tries to cover the various positions fairly on human origins, various causes for adaptations in species, etc.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight, as I said, I do believe and have seen examples of species evolution in action, I'm just still out personally on human evolution. I just don't think there is enough data available to settle that one... yet.

"Archaeology [science] is the search for fact. If it's truth you want, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." Indiana Jones.

 

[John Fenna]

I am not asking for yellow cards - anticipating them as some of the comments are ridiculing religious faith.
Not playing fair? - only if one person is the only one seemingly writing those rules.
Outplayed?
Just out-shouted!

 

[santaman2000]

Science Vs Supernatural will always attract the god question. There has been some good debate though. If you are not interested or think the discussion not to your liking then by all means stop reading. Players petitioning the ref for yellow cards for others is frowned upon, to continue your analogy. Especially when they are not even playing fair and appear only to be on the pitch to heckle the players. Walking off the pitch when being outplayed is fine if you like but then calling for the game to be stopped is just bad form.

True enough but I think we've hijacked the original poster's intent. I believe he was trying to get some campfire ghost stories.

 

[zarkwon]

Zarkwon,

Evolution of Species, yes. Human evolution, as in parallel evolution, evolution from apes, evolution from Neandethals, etc not so much. Which is why, I must admit, I posted: "For this one wiki it yourself. There are eleventy-one references just on wiki. As far as human evolution, there 13 x10 ^24 “theories.” ;-)'


As far as theroy, I referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory from wiki - it specifically discusses scientifc theory, modelling, scientific laws, etc.

When my daughter gets back with an Intro to Anthro book she wandered off with, I'll post the citation for the book. It's a pretty good one - which means he tries to cover the various positions fairly on human origins, various causes for adaptations in species, etc.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight, as I said, I do believe and have seen examples of species evolution in action, I'm just still out personally on human evolution. I just don't think there is enough data available to settle that one... yet.

Fair one mate. It is an interesting field. The possible migratory paths are fascinating too.

 

[zarkwon]

True enough but I think we've hijacked the original poster's intent. I believe he was trying to get some campfire ghost stories.

Well I may have some for you soon as I was given permission to use a lovely bit of land today. No-one else uses it and I am able to use fire

 

[mwelch8404]

As far as the original topic, I was coming out of an observatory one morning at about 1 am. The wind was picking up blowing dust and the sky was clouding up. Since this is an observatory, it was several miles out of town and away from any "civilization," meaning light pollution. I had stayed to finish up my paperwork, so everyone had been gone for nearly an hour. I checked to make sure my truck keys were in my hand before I locked the door, since getting locked out makes for a long, cold walk. I started on the 100 meter or so walk to my truck. I was about a third of the way there when a screech owl let one go. I never did decide if my heart stopped or just beat so fast I couldn't tell, since it was so far up my throat it was nearly between my ears. Nearly a wiper there.