Science vs Religion

[scorpio86]

I suppose it is a conversation about both.

[peteyb22]

This kind of reminds me of that south park episode about the true thanksgiving... i mean, there's certainly no proof that aliens weren't at the first thanksgiving...

[scorpio86]

I have not seen that episode of South Park.

How does this thread remind you of it?

[Palem]

Would people please stop abusing the term "Theory". An idea with no factual backing is not a theory.

@lastunicorn - Religious discussions are still subject to logic. Things can not be "created old". If something is created today, by that very fact, it can not be 10,000 years old. It breaks logical laws which is something that most agree even God can not do.

[scorpio86]

Unfortunately the vast majority of religous people do not particularly care about what is logical.

[Palem]

That's just untrue. There's just as many illogical athiests out there.

[Korp]

Slight difference between not caring to be logical and being illogical, the later one can just be a sign of stupidity

[stoffi]

An idea with no factual backing is not a theory.

That is the very definition of a theory, Palem.... A theory is something you can't prove with facts, it can't be proven, yet.

The Big Bang Theory though, has some proof showing the Universe is expanding from a centre where it all started expanding billions of years ago.

[scorpio86]

@Palem It is not untrue, yet i agree - there are many illogical humans of all descriptions, including both religious and non religious people.

[Palem]

That is the very definition of a theory, Palem.... A theory is something you can't prove with facts, it can't be proven, yet.

The Big Bang Theory though, has some proof showing the Universe is expanding from a centre where it all started expanding billions of years ago.

No. A theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed through various testing. At least, that's what scientific theories are.

[stoffi]

No. A theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed through various testing. At least, that's what scientific theories are.

hmmmm

Hitler had a theory about the Aryan race being superior and the jews, gypsees, etc were inferior. He didn't have any proof or facts to support it, he just hated the jews and invented his own theory. I guess the term 'theory' can be used in many ways.

But as you say, scientific theories need some basis in SCIENCE and are based on a hypothesis, so I think we agree on that at least. Some theories are stronger than others. The Big Bang is considered a theory because we weren't there when it happened. Everything indicates that everything in the Universe expands from one location and moves as if a Big Bang happened. It's a very strong theory, but I'd still call it a theory, a theory I believe in because the facts and scientific research we have today support it.

[scorpio86]

I never mentioned the word theory other than to compare the teaching of christianity to the teaching ofthe aboriginal rainbow serpent theory as to the origins of earth and life.

I never put down a definition of the word Palem. My previous comment was about your own comment regarding illogical athiests.

Do people here thing it is wrong to teach creationism in schools? To teach it as if it were maths or geography?

[lastunicorn]

Only if it's a religious class. Otherwise they have no right to teach something with no scientific backing.

[scorpio86]

But what about a child born into a religious family and sent to religious school? Isn't it wrong to teach a child that the earth was in 'fact' created in seven days and God was responsible and he died for our sins and blah blah blah... is that not wrong for that child to be taught wild beleifs as facts?

[lastunicorn]

I would consider that the choice of the one being educated (or parents), and anyone should have the freedom to learn that which they want to.