Video: How to Build a Dinosaur from a Chicken

Oh dear. You've done it again Popsci. This is, in a way, a bit like evolution. If anyone is thinking of trolling about evolution or religion, don't even think about it. I don't want to put up with idiots fighting about either of those. Religious people tend to say god created everything. Scientific people tend to say the universe has been here for a long time and everything has evolved. However, both are just theories. There is no proof that god exists or proof that there was a big bang. I don't want to hear your opinion on my comment. If you want to fight over any of this, Popsci is not the place to do it. Because, you know, it's a science site.

Haha yes ... But now they are trying to get rid of the Big Bang theory and replacing it with "Rapid Expansion" Im not sure what the difference really is but what ever gives them job security. lol

So, wait, describing specific findings without even commenting on the implications is sparking controversy? Is the existence of chickens, then, itself, trolling?

And if so, which came first: the trolling, or the troll? = )

Great, so now we are going to have to worry about teeth and tails in our 3 piece meals too.......

" I don't want to hear your opinion on my comment. If you want to fight over any of this, Popsci is not the place to do it. Because, you know, it's a science site."

Actually, I agreed with most of what you had to say. I hope you don't mind hearing that. But beyond that, how can you assume the right to voice an opinion here, on this science site, and then deny the whole world the right to either disagree or even comment to your comment?

Debate is not a bad thing. Keeping an open mind does lead you down a rabbit hole to some universe where governments prepare for... um, a zombie apocalypse. That's just where we all happen to live.

Oops, did I do that? Well, it looks like you had to hear my opinion anyway. I really feel bad about that, too.

Cheers :)

Haha yes...but now they are trying to get rid of dinosaurs on Noah's ark and replace them with chickens. Im not sure what the difference really is but what ever gives them job security. lol See what I did there. That was an implied debate.

well, looking at the bone structure of the dinosaur compared to the chicken, I think it could just as well be ANY kind of walking bird, like an emu, or an ostrich, not just chickens.

as for Little Jack Horner, I'm surprised there haven't been any jokes regarding his name. XD

The National Academy of Science (U.S.)
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong. Take that Navy1270.

*Sigh* Whatever. What am I to stop any of you from proving me wrong? I just want people to quit fighting over little things over the internet.

Nav1270: who says evolution is a theory? You bumbling denial type it's around you every second of every day. It's why we create drugs to fight bacteria they evolve and defeat our drugs. It's why we fight bugs with chemicals and they evolve to defeat DNT, etc (such as bedbugs are not completely immune to it). The bigger the creature the slower the evolution rate and that's why in your small brain you can't sense the evolution of beings such as yourself so you call it a 'theory'.

It's amazing how people cannot understand the timescales involved with evolution or time itself in terms of millions and billions of years. They can only think in the terms of ten minutes ago or maybe tonights TV show and that's the limit of their intelligence.

Ok! I get it! I'm wrong, Jesus! Most comments on here are proving me wrong and I can't do anything about it. I don't want to argue anymore! >:(

I think it's funny that he described the big bang as unproven. Which part of the big bang (which I think you're probably confusion with the standard cosmological model) isn't proven? The .00000000~1 seconds when physical law doesn't exist in our universe (thus preventing us from deriving further backwards)?

Navy, argument online is everywhere. Don't feel defensive because people corrected your misinformation. Learn from it and make yourself better with it. There's no point in getting defensive, all it does is make you want to ignore correct information presented by what you percieve to be your enemy.

Further before you describe a theory to a religious belief please understand what the difference between a scientific theory is versus a language theory is. In common language theory means idea, opinion or belief, in scientific terms a theory is something very well tested which has yet to be proven wrong but cannot be proven with 100% certainty of being correct. So while we can prove 99.999% certainty that gravity exists, gravity is still a theory. While we can prove with 99.999% certainty that germs can cause illness we can't prove with certainty that they always will.

The fact of the matter is Evolution is more scientifically accepted than the theory of gravity for very good reason. It is fact, the onus of responsibility is on you to find out why and to present accurate information.

@wm.jesse.miller there is HUGE difference. the big bang theory is an almost archaic theory no physicist uses any more.

"Haha yes ... But now they are trying to get rid of the Big Bang theory and replacing it with "Rapid Expansion" Im not sure what the difference really is but what ever gives them job security. lol"

its not really LOL at all. do a little research first. The big bang model was proposed way before dark energy and dark matter were held in any high regard at all. First off: observational data basically crushes the big bang theroy. After years of measuring energy backgrounds and speed or lack there of expansion the big bang theory does not hold much water. This was supported by, and led to the idea of dark matter and dark energy which is all but 100% proven to exist in the quantities theorized. The expansion model fits current phycicis 100 times better. They are still not sure though. Quataim phyicis has thrown many loops holes into the equations mainly in the first nano secondes of the universiserse existence.

sorry for the spelling mistakes. im on lunch break.. in a hurry.

The chicken and the egg.. its really a very simply answer. The egg came first. I think any scientisc would answer the same. If the chicken came first that would mean creationism existed and thats just a silly kids idea.
A chicken LIKE creature laid an egg that had slight mutations, this happened over and over again until the mutations created an egg that hatched into what we call a chicken.

I mean DUH!!!! what came first the gray wolf or the bassist hound! its not a trick question. The domestic dog, all of them, any of them are all evolutionary decedents of the wild gray wolf. we know this as scientific FACT. just like the chicken and the egg.

"I think it's funny that he described the big bang as unproven."

read my above post. it has in fact been VERY unproven.
but similar models have taken its place.
the big bang: Super condensed matter blew up and began to expand.
this is FALSE!!!! we know this as scientific FACT that this is false.
But something close to that happened. but its was not as simple and clean as the VERY old big bang theroy discribed.

There was a very deliberate and very rapid slow down of the expansion. When was the last time you saw a fire cracker or any explosion slow down half way through exploding??

Lets put it this way. the big bang theory is out, has been for 15 years!!!! the new theorieS (with a big S) are very much up in debate so that is why the big bang theory is still in the public mind as the definition theory.

The most widely accepted, but still very debated, is the expansion theory. imagine a balloon. when you blow it up it expands SUPER fast, then as the rubber reaches a certain tension (becuase of air molecules pushing against each other and compressed) the balloon still expands but at a much slower rate. that is what what they think happened to the universe.

"then as the rubber reaches a certain tension (becuase of air molecules pushing against each other and compressed)"

sorry that doesnt make any sense to me after I re-read it. but the rubber reaches tension nonetheless after being blown up a certian perctange.
The air pressure has nothing to do with this analogy.

If you know the right sequence you could build a dinosaur from carrot DNA.

Listen up nerds! Quit it, you're making God mad.

And I'm sorry to say but Navy1270 is on to something. God and Science are on equal footing. They are both systems that can only be proved or supported by using the (respective) system itself. They both rely on faith in things that you cannot see or experience. They both fail to answer fundamental questions about their origins. They both stop me from building a mechanical robot wife to replace the one I have now.

And....queue someone saying that science is more "real" and then explain why scientific methods when applied to God prove God to be a sham. Different paradigm folks and it presumes the superiority of "science" before the debate even begins.

the beginning of the universe is not nearly 100% proven; dark matter and dark energy are both a theory, the scientists studying them admit something else may be at work, however, at this time they believe they are on the right track; the big bang theory has not been discarded, it has been adjusted to satisfy new observations, it too could be replaced by something undiscovered and some scientists believe the big bang theory will be discarded, nothing new here; just science at work

@gizmowiz,

"It's amazing how people cannot understand the timescales involved with evolution or time itself in terms of millions and billions of years."

I think it's actually fairly expected that this would occur.

Our stupid monkey brains didn't evolve to understand numbers like "million" and "billion"... we evolved to understand numbers like "one" (banana) or "two" (bananas) or "a few" (bananas) or "some" (bananas) or "lots" (of bananas)...

We generally can understand numbers we can eat. I can't imagine trying to eat a million bananas... so it's hard to conceptualize. But, eating 4 bananas is pretty easy to conceptualize...

*makes monkey noises and scampers off*

@Navy1270,

"If anyone is thinking of trolling about evolution or religion, don't even think about it."

LOL... 'cause you wanna maintain the monopoly on such trolling through your initial comment?

So which came first, the dinosaur or the egg?

@Navy1270

i agree. that's exactly what i and others have been trying to tell people. but than again debate is healthy for the mind so a little argument here and there aint so bad. dinosaurs do remind me alot of birds.

I personally would love a chicken-sized T-Rex pet.

But then again, I also think that we need another creature on this planet to keep us humans on our toes.

And packs of Chicken-Rexes roaming the planet would do nicely!

This is not new information, so I don't know why this is on the front page of PopSci.

I first heard ALL of the info presented in a special on the Discovery Channel by the same guy in the video above (Dr. Horner) called "Discovery Dinosaurs Return to Life". It aired Feb 17 2008.

Here is an article that summarizes the Discovery Special. There is no new info in the above video that was not covered.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

If you are interested in this more, I recommend finding a copy of "Dinosaurs Return to Life". It gives a more in depth look at what and how they did this.

I found you can watch the special on Youtube. Below is the link:

Discovery Dinosaurs Return to Life
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB46sz5eoZg

"The chicken is a dinosaur, I mean it really is, you can't argue with it because we're the classifiers and we classified it that way."
That was prolly the most important line in the talk.

@VeganOverlord

I wouldn't get your heart set on the 'scientist' types here understanding what it means to 'assume what you're trying to prove'.

Further, with all the discussion going on here....does no one want to talk about the elephant in the room? I mean, the whole first half of the talk is about millions of years old soft tissue.

it's not still actually soft, soft tissue that has fossilized has turned into rock

@ Dr Chuck "the beginning of the universe is not nearly 100% proven; dark matter and dark energy are both a theory,"
adctually just this past month scientist think they have now have defiintive proof of dark matter.

and yeah dark matter and dark energy may still be theories, but 89% of the universise is made of something other than visible matter. that is fact. so really the only thing that is still theory is what the hell to call the other 89%. when you say theory, it just means that that have not pin pointed what exactly dark matter and dark energy are, but they have pretty much been 100% proven to exist.

@drchuck1

It still contains too many organic leftovers to match any fossilization model that requires millions of years. In other words another point at which scientific models which involve millions of years fail to match observation and good scientific practices.

@bagpipes100 - for the record I'm an agnostic who works as an Operations Manager for a SaaS provider - science is nifty. I also like puppies, playing volleyball and my favourite colour is light tan.

@VeganOverlord
Lisen up you have no idea what you are saying.

"God and Science are on equal footing." No they aren't. A simple question to ask and understand what one is better is "Do they test what they think?". THe answer are: Relgion, no. Science, yes every last thing. "They are both systems that can only be proved or supported by using the (respective) system itself." That doesn't change the fact of if you are right or not. "They both rely on faith in things that you cannot see or experience." It doesn;t matter if you can't see something so long as you know it's there. Science tests to see if something is real even if you can't see it. "They both fail to answer fundamental questions about their origins." Either science hasn't gotten to them because it has had to answer all the ones you need to know before you can answer they or they are nonstarters in the first place.

@kokofan50,

great points!

God and science are obviously NOT on equal footing as science requires no faith.

If I "believe" in gravity, I can test for it. And EVERY test I do confirms my beliefs.

If I "believe" in God, I can test for it. And almost EVERY test I do confirms there is no God. (I say almost, because occasionally through random events my tests might indicate success--I tell God to make it rain, and it starts raining).

As kokofan pointed out, science tests everything and isn't afraid to CHANGE to a set of assumptions that better reflect reality.

Religion does not do this. If a scientist proposes the theory of "gravity" and most of the time the results don't match the hypothesis... the theory is discounted.

With religion, people are okay overlooking a lifetime of having their hypothesis regarding god not supported by any empirical evidence... they just call it "faith"

Now... do I believe saying "God exists" is a scientific claim? Yes. It's just easily discredited as having no supporting evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwG9pDNSAXA

1. The big bang has not been changed to 'rapid expansion' the big bang is a nickname for inflation. Please order your concepts so you don't argue against the big bang in one second then argue for it in the next.

Inflation builds into the standard cosmological model. In the cosmological model there are a few problems but they are based on our own ignorance and in terms of the SCM they are insiginficant. The big bang is mathematically proven by hubble's theory, observationally we can verify that the further we look the younger the universe.

2. As for why the universe 'slowed' down. This is because at the birth of the universe science theorizes that the rules of the universe had not yet crystallized and thus with no speed limit initially the universe raced to expand. As the universe cooled and subatomic particles began to appear the rules were set. You can even create this type of non-rule bound materials theoretically by boiling space (take a glass furnace and multiply it by about a trillion times to get the right temperature) and (theoretically) that should eject itself from our universe to start a new big bang. This in no way affects the big bang.

3. As far as calling the big bang rapid expansion or big bang, I prefer to call it the big bang because rapid expansion assumes that it expanded evenly and predictably. This is not what happens and the chaos of an explosion much more aptly describes what happens. A restricting force was holding back a universe's worth of energy. At some point that restriction decayed into the 4 fundamental forces we have today.

4. God and science are not on equal footing, they are not even on the same philosophical plane. Do not compare the two or you're simply being intellectually dishonest. A scientific theory is verified, a religious idea is superstition, a scientific idea is knowledge. Are religious ideas sometimes verified by science? Yes. Is science ever proven wrong by religion? No. Religion does not possess the standing that science does philosophically lacking rigor, standardization, testing, empirical experiment and objectivity. If you want to believe in religion that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't lie to yourself that you do it because they are somehow magically on equal standing because by any proper definition they aren't and saying they are simply speaks of ignorance.

5. The big bang is not disproven by dark matter or dark energy. They fit with the inflation theory perfectly and in reality they were added to fill in holes we knew about thanks to the big bang theory. Dark energy and Dark matter are verified by looking at the way the universe acts and realizing that gravity could only hold 10% of it together. Thus a few options exist, either something with mass exists to increase gravity, gravity acts differently at a distance, or there's another force involved entirely. We refer to these options together as dark matter. Dark energy however is not really dark energy. We give the name dark to something when we can't figure out whats happening but we know it is.

6. Dark energy is essentially quantum particles which pop and burst in and out of existence constantly. See the casamir effect or negative energy if you need the specifics. Basically there's particles popping in and out of existence all around us but thanks to the more permanant ones around us we don't notice their effects on this scale at all. However galaxies do notice their effects as the birth of these particles between them constantly pushes galaxies further and further apart in all directions. Very rarely does the velocity of a galaxy towards us overcome the ever expanding push of quantum particles. Because while the force isn't noticeable to us, it is multiplied by distance.

@inaka_rob..."actually just this past month scientist think they now have defiintive proof of dark matter" key words "they think" so your point is you agree with me? @Bagpipes100...no, actually it just shows more stuff can fossilize than previously thought, nice try, actually a stupid try

thanks for the posts DRaney and B.V.

Thanks to Navy for learning that ordering people to not do something is the most effective way to get them to do it. To those who don't "believe" in evolution, good, the rest of us don't care about your fantasies.

@BV "Our stupid monkey brains didn't evolve to understand numbers like "million" and "billion"... we evolved to understand numbers like "one" (banana) or "two" (bananas) or "a few" (bananas) or "some" (bananas) or "lots" (of bananas)...

We generally can understand numbers we can eat. I can't imagine trying to eat a million bananas... so it's hard to conceptualize. But, eating 4 bananas is pretty easy to conceptualize..."

You are close but not quite there. our monkey brains as you put didn't use bananas to count. they used fingers. And your right even when we had pretty advanced mathematics and geometry back in ancient Greece they had NO numbers to represent over 100,000 I think (they could but it was a VERY VERY long string of "digits" not at all useful for math equations". That is why many of the early calculation of the earths size and distance from sun were often really wrong.

This is also why many early cultures used base 12 counting systems. 10 fingers and two feet. 12.

@inaka_rob,

"This is also why many early cultures used base 12 counting systems. 10 fingers and two feet. 12."

I've never heard that theory before... seems like if the person living in X early culture could look down and see he had 2 feet, he could just as easily see he had 10 toes... or 2 arms... or 2 elbows... or knees...

Why not a 10 fingers + 10 toes + 2 feet + 2 arms + 2 elbows + 2 knees = 28 base system?

--

The theory I've heard about why 12 was so important prior to the 10-base system was two-fold:

1) 12 is easily divisible by the number of important individuals one might typically have in a small social group: 1, 2, 3, or 4. (kids, elders, knights, etc.)

2) It's easy to divide a circle into 12 parts, so it was important for early clocks and navigational tools

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the "ease of division of 12" theory rather than the "10 toes + 2 feet" theory

Oh also, when I'm talking about "understanding" numbers, I'm talking about doing so without grouping them.

Can you visualize what 12 jellybeans looks like without grouping them into a 3x4 square? Or into 3 groups of 4?

Most people can only visualize 4 items without grouping. Some can go up to 5. But anything beyond that is not the norm... and can usually only be understood as a multiple of numbers 1-5.

Another way to think of it is whether or not you have to do arithmetic to count the number of items you see.

If I look at a bunch of grapes and I see three, I just think "three", I don't think "1 + 2... that's three!"

If I look at a bunch of grapes and I see 5, I tend to think "2 + 3... that's five!"

Hope that better explains what I mean

@kokofan50 et. al. - You are attempting to dengrade relgion for not applying scientific principals in support of itself. There is nothing about a religion that requires one to test anything - that is a scientific notion. It is the equivalent of asking a scientist to pray for an outcome in a clinical trial. I will not dispute that science has much more pragmatic applicability with regards to many aspects of life. It has no applicability in others. Saying that one cannot test religion supports the statement that religion is not good science. It does not support the fact that it is nonsense.

The scientist runs agound on the same rock as the theist in the end. A system that can only be supported by it's own tenets, one that relies on faith in the unobservable, one that requires theories that humans cannot fully grasp (4+ dimensions/omnipotence).

These arguments that religion is foolishness could also be applied in critique of the love I have for my children, and you probably have for yours.

As a scientific idea, I personally don't see how there can be a God. But then we used to think the world was flat. So I'll just accept that maybe I'm wrong.

I do believe, however, that the 'idea' of God, as it currently stands today in monotheistic religions, is not one of science. Perhaps you believe that science is the only path. If it is successful for you, then I encourage you to follow it. Ultimately, however, nothing can come to prove itself, by scientific theory, and therefore I choose to believe that it is possible that there may be something else.

I may be wrong, I may be right, but that is something that science can not prove either way.

I'm pretty sure there's a middle-ground somewhere here that would be mutually acceptable. Some possibilities include:

"God" is energy in all it's forms

"Science" is the closest we primitive humans can come to conceptualizing the existence of things both within and beyond our rational grasp

If we modify our perspective only slightly, we realize there is the possibility for both to be correct without one discrediting the other. I, for one, like it here on the fence. it's close enough to the ground to see the insects, and high enough to let me see my neighbors.

Few people remember or maybe realized that Dr. Horner was roundly criticized for suggesting that modern birds are dinosaurs. He was also criticized for breaking open dinosaur eggs, drilling into dino bone, and determining that dinosaurs, like birds, can look drastically different when young than when full grown.

Because he dared to do the things others found repulsive he was able to determine what an adolescent dinosaur looked like, how old a dinosaur was, and how dinosaurs developed over time.

By giving his curiosity full reign and daring to do what no one else did, he has contributed more to the field of dinosaur paleontology than any other single scientist.

Not bad for a dyslexic who nearly failed college.

@VeganOverlord,

"There is nothing about a religion that requires one to test anything - that is a scientific notion."

No, it's a common sense notion.

If I tell you that you can fly, it's a scientific claim. Anything that has to do with the nature of reality and existence is a scientific claim.

When the Bible claims the world was created by a superhero in 6 days--that is a scientific claim.

When a Shaman prances around and burns the fetus of a lamb to increase the power of his magical healing spell--that is a scientific claim.

When someone sells you a Voodoo doll and tells you to stab it in the head to affect your enemy--that is a scientific claim.

Either...

1) Your "religion" exists as a completely abstract and "metaphysical" concept which has no actual bearing on the physical world (and hence, is pretty much pointless)
or
2) You "religion" claims to affect the physical world and may even explain it's existence and claim responsibility for it.

If you believe in divine intervention, healing powers, punishment for your sins, prayer, spells, etc. then you are making scientific claims.

Most widespread religions are of the #2 variety--the kind where people pray and chant and perform superstitious rituals in an attempt to influence the physical world.

Therefore, most widespread religions are scientific--they are just bad science.

@B.V. - your comments show how one CAN apply scientific principles to challenge/vet a religious claim. I did not dispute the fact that one can do this. What I said was there is nothing about religion that requires one to test or validates ones claims/beliefs. If a person believes that God created the world in 6 days, their system does not require that they explain the mechanics of it or "prove" it in any way. Can one apply the scientific method to religion? Absolutely. Does the religion require this? Absolutely not. Does applying the scientific method to religion somehow discredit it? No. Religion is not science, it is regligion. If it were science we wouldn't be having this debate.

@VeganOverlord,

Religion IS science.

Science is a way to explain the world, to understand it, to influence it in favor of a person.

Religion is a way to explain the world, to understand it, to influence it in favor of a person.

Science is just much more effective.

---

"nothing about religion that requires one to test or validates ones claims/beliefs."

What the hell does that even mean? Life requires one to validate and test one's claims/beliefs.

In fact, life DOES test your claims and beliefs...

If you believe crazy shit, you will be proven wrong repeatedly--sometimes with deadly consequences.

Even if we ignore the glaring "is it true or false" philosophical argument, religion is still stupid/harmful.

Let's look at science and self-delusion--I mean, religion--from a utilitarian perspective. Let's assume we are rational people and we will subscribe to notions based on how useful they are.

The first notion we have is that God punishes the wicked and rewards the just. Prayer works and miracles happen.

If we subscribe to this notion, then we cure disease by praying about it.

People used to pray to have their ailments cured, they died.

Then, another notion presents itself. The natural world works largely through consistent rules; if we know these rules we can influence the natural world.

If we subscribe to the second notion, then we cure disease by understanding the mechanisms behind it, and by directly interfering with them.

People started to use medicines and vaccines to have their ailments cured; this was MUCH more effective.

Science had more utility as a system for explaining the natural world and for interacting with it--that's why when you get sick you go to a doctor instead of sitting around praying.

---

The religious apologists who, like VeganOverlord, claim that religion and science are things concerned with two separate domains have abstracted their original claims/beliefs so much that they are completely irrelevant.

They have gone from claims like "God wants you to kill lambs and burn them or else he'll smite you"; "God created the world in 6 days"; "All humans that are alive today are descended from 6 people aboard Noah's Ark"--claims that have been discredited with science--to abstract and meaningless claims that cannot be discredited with science... claims such as "God exists--but in a metaphysical reality which nobody can observe in any possible way..."

---

It's like me saying that Elvis is alive--metaphysically. It's not a "scientific" claim... it's a "metaphysical" one! When I look around at the world, I see proof of Elvis being alive in the design of the creatures living here... when I look at you I see that you might be Elvis (metaphysically), etc.

However, if I went around spouting delusional B.S. about Elvis I'd instantly pay a social price for doing so... when Hindus/Christians/Muslims/Jews go around spouting their own delusional B.S. about another metaphysical entity... suddenly they aren't delusional--they are believers with "faith"

@ B.V. - Firstly, I could reverse your definition and say that;

Science IS Religion.

Religion is a way to explain the world, to understand it, to influence it in favour of a person.

Science is a way to explain the world, to understand it, to influence it in favour of a person.

Science is just a more effective (read: pragmatic)

You seem to be assuming that the religious man has no room for science in his belief system. There is nothing incompatible or contradictory about believing in science and religion. Science is a study of the physical world and can explain how things happen. It cannot explain the "why", however, only the "how".

You also seem to be equivocating Logic and Science. I did not call Logic into question as without it there is no way for us to understand anything. I said the scientific method could not be applied to religion, not that logic could not. If one prays for relief from a disease and it does not come is the only conclusion to draw is that there is no God and that pray is a sham? Of course not. Unless of course, you consider prayer to be on par with a Wish.

Also, science has not discredited any of what you say it has. Within the realm of science (without God) you can certainly draw the conclusion that the world was not created in 6 days but you are not required to do so. There are innumerable things about the universe that we do even remotely understand scientifically. To suggest that we are now in the end game of scientific understanding is simply arrogant and entirely unsupportable. We have no idea what we don't know or what things we think we know are true or not. All of the scientific arguments against God presume that God is limited by the rules of physical world and cannot bend, alter, accelerate, (etc.) them. The theist does not need to grant the scientist that concession.

It is supreme arrogance to think that Science has any absolute knowledge of any kind. The best Science can hope for is to be able to suggest a plausible explanation for how something happens under certain conditions.

@VeganOverlord,

"There is nothing incompatible or contradictory about believing in science and religion."

Yes... there is. When your religion tells you that the world is 6,000 years old and science tells you it's about 3.5 billion years old... both of those claims cannot be true.

"It cannot explain the "why", however, only the "how"."

Religion does not explain the "how" any more than science. The difference is that science says "we do not yet know why X occurs" whereas religion answers with, "God did it."

That difference alone is a major contributor for why religions are harmful. They encourage preservation of the status quo.

A scientist who doesn't understand why people die after getting sick will try to figure out "why" and eventually will come up with some ways to help prevent diseases.

A religious person who doesn't understand why people die after getting sick will just say "God did it" and stop searching.

Religion is useful for making yourself feel better about your own intellectual limits.

Science is useful for actually expanding your intellectual limits to make the world a better place.

When it comes down to it, science makes your life better--not superstition.

----

"There are innumerable things about the universe that we do even remotely understand scientifically. "

Yes. And "understanding them religiously" is as useful as saying "I do not understand them".

Except saying "I don't know why/how" is actually true--claiming metaphysical entities affect the physical world is AT BEST speculation, and at worst a blatant lie.

----

"All of the scientific arguments against God presume that God is limited by the rules of physical world and cannot bend, alter, accelerate, (etc.) them."

No. The scientific argument against God is that there is zero evidence for the existence of God.

The scientific argument against Dragons is that there is zero scientific evidence for the existence of Dragons.

Science is not concerned with "proving wrong" things which have no evidence to support them.

It's up to the "Logic" or "Common sense" of a rational individual to say "I'm not going to claim things are true without empirical evidence".

If you believe in God, you also have to believe in everything else that has zero evidence for it in order to maintain logical consistency.

You must believe in Dragons, Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Magic, Aliens, Bigfoot, Trolls, pots of gold at the end of rainbows, "lucky gym socks" and anything else someone can just claim is real without evidence.

If you arbitrarily choose between superstitions, you are showing a lack of logical consistency and are proving your choices are the result of socialization--not rational evaluation of reality.

@ B.V. -

"When your religion tells you that the world is 6,000 years old and science tells you it's about 3.5 billion years old... both of those claims cannot be true."

Firstly the bible does not claim the earth was created 6000 years ago, it says it was reformed. The earth was created in the "beginning" and then at some point changed over 6 days. Moreover from a religious perspective, the theist doesn't care that science says that it is 3.5 billion years old. Current Scientific theories and methods estimate the age at 3.5 billion years. Science also used to think that the earth was the center of the universe, that the electron was the smallest particle there was and that the earth was flat. The earth will be 3.5 billion years old until that no longer can be supported by some other "fact" and then it will become younger or older - whatever is required.

"Religion does not explain the "how" any more than science. The difference is that science says "we do not yet know why X occurs" whereas religion answers with, "God did it.""

Science will never know why X occurs. It would require a comprehensive and complete understanding of every force and principal in the universe as well as their origins and ultimate end.

"When it comes down to it, science makes your life better--not superstition."

I have a religious friend that lost their 1st born son in a car accident at the age of 5. Science didn't improve their life following that loss. I can assure you that their faith did. Was science used to try to save their son? Of course. Does science improve our lives? Of course it does. Is it the only thing that improves our lives? Of course not.

When I made the statement "There are innumerable things about the universe that we do even remotely understand scientifically." I pointing out that we use science to discredit things that do not fit into the scientific system when that system is woefully incomplete and potentially subject to rediculous amounts of change in the future.

"No. The scientific argument against God is that there is zero evidence for the existence of God."

That is a fair point. However, the conclusion that scientists want to draw from this is that there is, therefore, no God. That statement is not supportable through science. I don't have a problem with the scientist saying "I see no evidence which requires mt to believe in God". I do have a problem with "There is no God".

The atheist’s position is as unsupportable as the theists. The atheist is required to prove something does not exist (which is impossible) and theist is asked to prove that God exists using a system that has no applicability to his position. The only person who has a supportable position is the agnostic who withholds judgement due to a lack of available information.

Let me ask you this; Might God exist?

"Firstly the bible does not claim the earth was created 6000 years ago, it says it was reformed."

If you add up all of humans listed in the bible and their offspring you end up with around 6,000 years between when the first man was made by god, and today.

Pretty sure science has overwhelming evidence that humans are older than 6,000 years old.

The bible also claims all of the animals/plants/bacteria/etc. was created at the same time the first man was--this claim is also refuted by an overwhelming body of evidence.

---

"Science will never know why X occurs."

Maybe not, but science will always TRY to find out why. And with this constant pursuit of explanation humanity will benefit in yet-unimaginable ways.

Religions will never know why X occurs either--but it doesn't care. Religion is satisfied with telling peasants dying during the great plague in Europe that God is lovingly and justly punishing them for their sins... science is not.

Science keeps moving forward, religion surrenders. That's why religion is intellectual bankruptcy.

---

"I have a religious friend that lost their 1st born son in a car accident at the age of 5. Science didn't improve their life following that loss. I can assure you that their faith did. Was science used to try to save their son? Of course. Does science improve our lives? Of course it does. Is it the only thing that improves our lives? Of course not."

There are lots of ways to deal with tragedy which are alternatives to religion.

In fact, the "soft science" of psychology and psychiatry help people deal with it every single day...

People are "helped" with placebo's all the time. Belief in an afterlife, reunion with your family there, etc. is nothing more than a placebo effect.

Self delusion can be useful. It can help people get on with their lives after a tragedy, it can help someone approach a sexual partner... that's why it's still around.

However, when self delusion allows you to be exploited by someone who wants you to kill homosexuals, or strap a bomb to your chest, or to give them 10% of your income... then it's no longer useful.

---

"I don't have a problem with the scientist saying "I see no evidence which requires mt to believe in God". I do have a problem with "There is no God"."

Do you have a problem with people saying "There are no Dragons"? or "There are no soultraps in volcanos placed there by Lord Xenu"?

You mention that atheists state "God does not exist" as a matter of fact, but I would say that most atheists are actually very uncomfortable describing themselves with that word--there is simply not another word that exists to accurately describe their opinion on the subject.

Most people who mark "atheist" on a survey do not proclaim that it's impossible for God to exist. In fact to answer such a question one needs a consistent definition for the word "God"... religions do not even offer this much... each one claims a different view of what God means.

I'd really recommend watching "The Atheism Tapes" (it's on Netflix). It's not preachy, and will give you an in-depth perspective on the sorts of questions and ways of thinking many atheists experience.

"Athiest" in most cases simply means that they are not convinced by the arguments presented by religious apologists. Just as they are not convinced by the arguments presented by psychic healers, or spiritual mediums, dragon apologists, or other supernatural claims.

It seems to me that there are 3 ways to deal with unsubstantiated claims:

1) Assume they are true
2) Assume they are false
3) Reserve evaluation until further analysis

Superstitious people take approach 1, skeptics usually take approaches 2 & 3.

I try my best to take approach 3. However, this does not mean that I am incapable of claiming a specific religion/description of God is illogical, or self contradictory, responsible for human suffering, and best abandoned in lieu of a more healthy belief system.

---

"Let me ask you this; Might God exist?"

Depends on your definition of God.

I once heard a Jewish theologian describe God as an entity which exists outside of this Universe, outside of all existence, and outside of the constraints of the finite AND the infinite concepts of reality...

If one uses this definition, the answer to your question is impossible because God would have to neither exist nor "non-exist" but encompass a completely different state outside of Boolean logic.

If you ask me a more specific question, like, "Do you believe that you are born a sinner and that only faith in Jesus Christ can assure your place in heaven?"

I can easily answer "Nope, I don't believe that."

@ B.V. - You have made a few references to the harm that religion does in defence of why it is, ultimately, an unhealthy enterprise. Firstly, it would be dishonest to suggest that science has been a uniformly positive endeavour for humanity. As much as science has improved life expectancies, cured diseases, and made our lives more "comfortable" it has also brought us the Atom bomb, innumerable carcinogenics into our daily lives, created horrible weapons and made those weapons easily accessible to terrible people, and put the viability of life on this planet in serious jeopardy. It is a convenient argument to cite nefarious examples of all the harm religion (particularly Christianity) has done throughout history and neglect the fact that the majority of world aid is delivered through religious (predominately Christian)charities. People will cite the Crusades as an example of why religion is a terrible idea. I would never defend the Crusades however the number of people killed is generally accepted at around 30,000 (on both sides). Compare that to atrocities which are not religiously motivated and you have a tremendous contrast. One could make the argument that religion, while far from perfect, acts as a governor for atrocities, not an inducement.

Science can certainly be a noble pursuit - I am not disputing that. Having said that it ultimately engaged in a process that it has no explanation for. Truth? That is not a naturally occurring concept, we created that. Order? There is nothing in nature that can support that abstract concept, we brought it to the table.

Things like justice, equality, fairness, compassion, love, have supreme relevance to humans and none of these concepts be explained by Science. The scientist believes in his own dragons it is just that no one calls him on it.

We have drifted a bit off from our original topic which was debating whether Science is somehow better than or superior to religion. When you ask the scientist to defend himself he runs for his calculator and microscope. Ask the theist to defend himself he runs for his "bible". The first (and arguably the only move available to them) is to use the system that you are asking them to defend to make that defence. Neither can provide absolute, independent proof of their position and certainly not without using concepts inherent to their system.

I am not a theist. However I have great respect for theists as, in my experience, that are preoccupied with the questions that I am ultimately most interested in. Rightness, compassion, charity, goodness.

@VeganOverlord,

"Science" does not have a dogma in and of itself. There are certain scientific opinions, such as "the big bang theory" or "gravity" that most people tend to subscribe to.

But, there is nothing in science that claims, "these MUST be true"... all science claims is that one uses the scientific method to come up with intellectual models for reality.

There is no science pope that lays down a decree from "up above" about how gravity works. Every single person is allowed to come up with experiments and models for describing it... as long as it's based on empirical evidence. The closest model for reality is the one most likely to be accepted by others.

There is no debate in religion about whether or not one should honor thy father and thy mother--the holy scripture explicitly tells you that's what god wants; so you better do it.

You aren't allowed to run statistics on parental roles in the development of children, or present arguments about why it might be okay to not honor one's terrible parents.

In religion, it's either "accept the word of god" or "burn in hell, you filthy heathen".

Although I certainly think religion has caused a great number of problems through-out history such as the crusades, Spanish inquisition, Salem witch trails, 9/11, etc., the specific atrocities are not what make religion detrimental.

I think the most detrimental aspect of religion is the way in which one must think in order to participate.

Religion teaches people to believe in things for which there is no evidence, it teaches people to believe in hierarchical social structures, it teaches people to limit their questions and their thinking, it aims to preserve the status quo, it teaches people to be subservient to "higher powers", and it teaches people to act in specific ways out of fear of punishment.

Religion encourages people to be gullible, uncreative, subservient, obedient, and scared. It encourages people to stay where they are in life, to judge others and themselves to see where everyone ranks, and to serve those deemed "above" them.

It doesn't matter that some gullible, scared, and obedient sheeple donates $100 to a Christian charity which will use $80 of that donation to teach AIDS infested poor people in Africa about abstinence from sex and hatred for homosexuals while geting them to sign abstinence pledges / death punishment laws for homosexuality in exchange for bags of rice.

Using the fear of hell as a way extort "compassion" out of someone is not really "moral" or "good" in my opinion. Therefore any "good deeds" that religious organizations do are tainted by their oppressive doctrine.

When a secular humanist, such as myself, donates to the Red Cross (a secular organization), he or she does so because they feel a mammalian instinct to help their fellow mammals in a time of crisis. There are no feelings of fear about damnation to hell for eternity to motivate my charity. There is no signing of pledges to use the scientific method, or to believe in the Big Bang theory when someone gets secular aid.

In the realm of science, when a person does "good" or "it's opposite" it is due to their own motivations and self-interest... not because the law of Gravity commands it, or because the Science Pope threatens excommunication.

---

"Neither can provide absolute, independent proof of their position and certainly not without using concepts inherent to their system."

Science and religion do not exist outside the scope of humans. Just like geometry and music theory do not exist outside of humans. They are things that our brains came up with to model the reality which they perceive.

Before there was science, or religion, there was "common sense"... like, knowing that if you go and kick a tiger, you will probably die.

No caveman argued to another caveman that "there is no absolute, independent proof of that position" because you could easily come up with proof to test that theory.

Go kick a tiger and see if it attacks you.

Eventually this "common sense" became more formalized in the form of the "scientific method".

It's based on empirical evidence. This means that if I drop an apple and it falls at a calculated rate, I can write down the steps for performing this experiment and if you follow those steps you will get the same exact result as me, every single time.

^^ those are independently verified arguments.

You can drop an apple and verify gravity for yourself. I can drop and apple and verify gravity for myself.

If you drop an apple a certain way and it DOESN'T follow the conventional rules of gravity, everyone else will be very interested in your apple-dropping and will want to extend their understanding of gravity... and a new idea of gravity will emerge.

However, if you pray for rain and it starts raining, you can write down what you said, how you said it, and whatever other instructions I would need to reproduce your experiment. However, when I try it... it won't work. In fact when others try to independently verify your claims... they won't be able to.

These "concepts" of perceiving reality and interacting with it are precursors to science... they are not inherent to "the system"... they are inherent to existence. Ants can perceive reality, they can interact with it... it's hard to argue they are operating in "the realm of science" when they farm fungus or link arms to create floating rafts of ants to survive floods.

They just do what works... they don't publish peer-reviewed studies about the best way to survive a flood, or holy books about proper ant behavior to prevent "higher powers" from punishing them with floods...they just perceive reality, and then manipulate it to best suit their needs.

Science is based on reality... reality is not based on science. Religion is based on reality... reality is not based on religion.

See how it works?

First, reality. Then, models of reality (a.k.a. "science" and "religion").

---

"Ask the theist to defend himself he runs for his "bible""

I don't need to ask a theist to defend himself, because it is up to the person making claims to provide the evidence for them. Just like I don't need to ask dragon-believers to defend themselves.

If I say, "Hey, we should all brush our teeth at least twice a day with flouride toothpaste for better oral health" I can provide evidence to back up my proposition.

If I say, "Hey, we should all pray while turned towards Mecca 5 times a day to...uhh... because Allah told me to!" I haven't even made a cogent argument.

---

"However I have great respect for theists as, in my experience, that are preoccupied with the questions that I am ultimately most interested in. Rightness, compassion, charity, goodness."

There is a difference between philosophy--which is preoccupied with QUESTIONING what rightness, compassion, charity, and goodness mean--and religion, which is preoccupied with TELLING you what rightness, compassion, charity, and goodness mean.

One does not have to first declare intellectual bankruptcy and accept a fantasy reality in order to intellectually explore the concepts you listed. In fact, philosophers have been exploring these concepts since before Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have even existed...

@ B.V. - Many of your arguments against religion are based on aspects which you, personally, find reprehensible; absolute adherence to rules, unquestionable authority, etc. While you may not like these concepts and think you have a better ideas to propose, this does not act as a counterargument to Religion's "truthfulness". All you have done is say that "you" think there is a better way where testing and consensus are the rule.

I am not disputing the usefulness of Science. Or disputing the fact that it is a reasonable method by which we can manipulate the world. The fact that you cannot apply the same methods religious concepts does not undermine their validity. Because I cannot provide cause-and-effect evidence that support a statement does not discredit it. I believe that I should love my children - if I were asked to defend why, I could not give a reason. There is no way to test if this is a good or sound idea but this does not discredit it.

You reference Philosophy in your previous post. Regrettably the scientist needs to throw that out as well. You can't test that. You cannot build a consensus around philosophical ideas. The scientist needs to throw out the very concepts Philosophy (and Religion) and concerned with. You cannot "test" justice. The concept of Justice or Charity or Goodness have no place in science. Also I am not sure that "philosophy" has a tradition dating back 6000 years as do the religions you note above. It's "birth" is generally accepted at around 500 BC.

It is currently the fashion to denigrate religion whenever possible. However when the same principles wear a different mask, no one has any problem with it. I must follow the laws of the country I live in or face punishment. I have to go to work today or I might get fired. We are collectively bound by rules and restriction which very rarely have anything to do with science.

Inherent to your argument that religion is "intellectually bankrupt" is the proposition that Religion has never produced any intellectual fruit. Clearly this is absurd as there is a long and rich academic history in almost every religion.

The scientific paradigm and the religious paradigm offer competing theories about the universe. One can argue all day long that science has more applicability or testability or greater consensus. However, when one has a competing paradigm there is no common standard by which either can be judged and neither of them can be that standard. Epistemologically, science and religion are on equal footing.

BTW - Science left the realm of common sense a long time ago.

@VeganOverlord,

"Many of your arguments against religion are based on aspects which you, personally, find reprehensible"

Sorry I was not clearer in why I was talking about these things. I was not trying to argue that religion is "false" because it is destructive (in my opinion), I was simply trying to explain why I spend any time arguing about something I consider silly, like, say, Christianity, while not spending any time arguing against Dragons.

The reason is because christian gullibility is much more damaging than dragon gullibility. (I.E. nobody is prevented from getting medical insurance for their life partner because the Great Dragon commands people with blue eyes cannot get married).

So, believing in Dragons doesn't negatively effect other people. Believing in the Bible does. (This is not evidence for the bible being false, it is the reason for why I even care to engage in the debate).

-----

"I believe that I should love my children - if I were asked to defend why, I could not give a reason."

You actually could, provide scientifically sound arguments for why it might be a good idea to do so.

For instance, you could conduct studies and collect data about children who felt loved and those who did not, and find correlations between levels of crime, economic achievement, and overall life satisfaction of the child.

You could conduct research on the elderly care situations for the parents of those children and present an argument that said something like this:

"According to my empirical study, I see a strong correlation between children who were treated as though they were loved and retirement home comfort level and life satisfaction of the parents. Based on this evidence, I can conclude that loving your child is a good way to ensure your life is comfortable when you are old."

Or you can go in a different direction and take hormonal samples of parents as they go about caring for their children and then study the health implications of the chemistry inside the body of "loving" parents vs. non-loving parents to see which chemistry is healthier. It might be that parents who love their children have chemistry that boosts their immune system...

So yeah... actually you could devise scientific experiments to test basically any claim you make that is relevant to the physical world.

That's why you see today most of the focus of religions is about what's going to happen to you after you die--not about praying for miracles or manipulating the natural world--because if religions compete in the realm of reality they fail miserably. So, religious apologists have managed to move the goal posts outside of the realm of existence/reality/science.

----

"You reference Philosophy in your previous post. Regrettably the scientist needs to throw that out as well. You can't test that. You cannot build a consensus around philosophical ideas"

Formal science started from philosophy. Ideas like "a thing can't be two contradictory things at the same time" is a philosophical principle that is the basis for "logic" on which science is based.

So, if I was on a cruise ship in the Carribean ocean when my wife was murdered, "logic" tells us that I could not have been the murderer.

You could stand there and pontificate that "maybe" I had satanic powers of teleportation and managed to pull off the murder myself and nobody would be able to prove that that's not what happened... So what?

Just 'cause you can come up with some imaginary explanation which contradicts all observed and known qualities of our consensus reality doesn't mean it deserves the same level of merit as explanations grounded in reality.

----

"Also I am not sure that "philosophy" has a tradition dating back 6000 years as do the religions you note above. "

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not 6K years old... they just claim the world is; try Google.

----

"The scientific paradigm and the religious paradigm offer competing theories about the universe. One can argue all day long that science has more applicability or testability or greater consensus. However, when one has a competing paradigm there is no common standard by which either can be judged and neither of them can be that standard. "

The common standard is empirical reality... duh...

If we have two competing theories for the observable effect of gravity, we would throw out the one that does not match our observations.

The biblical "theory" about the universe is that all humans are descendants of Noah from a big flood that happened like 4000 years ago.

However, this "theory" does not match our observations of reality. These observations suggest that more than 8 people are responsible for the human race; that we did NOT all have a single ancestor 4K years ago...

That's the common standard: reality.

@ B.V - I think you are missing my two main points. Science itself is founded on principles for which it cannot offer any explanation; order, rationality, correctness, truth, logic. These cannot be explained or defended "scientifically".

Secondly, your counter-argument to my last point simply proposes a third paradigm - "observable reality" as the measure of "truth". Moreover there is nothing in the religious paradigm that requires its belief system to correlate with observable reality anyway.

You are, once again, using scientific concepts to critique religion. Observable reality does not contradict the Noah story, our "understanding" of genetics does. A theory that is logically consistent with itself cannot be proven to be false. It requires a standard to judge its truthfulness against. We have no such standard, only competing paradigms. You may prefer one paradigm over another but you are not capable of making an argument against its truthfulness.

Lastly, if you have the sort of faith in science that I suspect you do, do you have any science to prove that religion is, on whole, a damaging enterprise?

@VeganOverlord,

"Science itself is founded on principles for which it cannot offer any explanation; order, rationality, correctness, truth, logic."

Why does it need to offer explanations for that?

Religions are based on principles for which they cannot offer any explanations as well...

---

"Secondly, your counter-argument to my last point simply proposes a third paradigm - "observable reality" as the measure of "truth"."

So... your argument is what? Things that aren't real are just as real as things that are real?

The religious apologists claim that God is real. That requires "reality" as the basis for testing this claim.

For instance, if I say, "Nadgob is imaginary", then that requires "imagination" as the basis for testing this claim. I can say, "Nadgob exists in my imagination. He isn't real, and has nothing to do with reality, and whatever I imagine won't actually have any effect on the real world."

That's perfectly fine.

If you claim that it's impossible to prove God exists or is real because he "exists" outside of the scope of existence/reality itself... then that's the same thing as saying "God isn't real/God doesn't exist."

I have no problem with that. My imaginary friend Nadgob and God both exist in my imagination and have no correlation to the real world.

Great; except that is NOT what religious apologists claim. They claim belief in an existing God that DOES interfere with and manipulate the real world (by doing miracles and answering prayers, smiting people... and creating stuff in the first place).

Therefore, religions that make claims about the real world MUST be evaluated with "reality" as the basis for determining whether or not they are accurate theories.

---

"A theory that is logically consistent with itself cannot be proven to be false."

Not sure what this means exactly, but religious are full of inconsistencies and self-contradictions.

I also agree that if a claim is self-contradictory that it must be discarded.

I can easily show you a list of contradictions in the Bible, if you want, and they have nothing to do with "reality". You can also just Google for the list.

----

"Lastly, if you have the sort of faith in science that I suspect you do, do you have any science to prove that religion is, on whole, a damaging enterprise?"

I can fairly easily present information that is specific, but I don't think there is any way one can deal with an abstract concept like "damaging".

I can show how a specific religious piece of dogma is damaging in respect to a specific thing in the world.

For instance, the biblical prohibition of eating pork is detrimental to the pork industry.

The biblical prohibition of men cutting their beards is detrimental to the barber industry.

I don't believe in abstract concepts like "just overall damaging" or "bad". I only try to deal with specifics. I do definitely have many specific cases where I see religions as damaging, but I don't really see how personal desires have any bearing on religions being incompatible with reality (therefore making their claims unreal/fake/imaginary/non-existent/inapplicable/false).

@ B.V. - I think we are probing the limits of the usfulness of this debate so I will provide some final thoughts and give you the last word;

If the Scientist believes that his system is "true" in the larger sense of that word and that it is capable of explaining all aspects of existence then he needs to tackle all the questions, not the ones he has convenient answers to. In an earlier post you indicated that it is up to the person making the claim to provide evidence for it. Show me the scientific evidence for "compassion". The best case scenario is that the scientist can explain why compassion is a bioligically useful feature and extol how it is untimately a pragmatic venture. The scientist can then move on to explain how the holocaust was also a very nice and interesting example of natural selection at work. There is in-fighting in amongst all species and the systematic extermination of 6 million people is a testiment to our incredible advances in biology and, moreover ultimate a good thing as weaker examples of the species are being eliminated which is in the best interest of humans. The scientist has a problem on his hands; there is absolutely no place for Morality in his system. Yet I don't see him standing up and saying so. It's a nice system if you want to make an airplane, not so nice if you want to create a kinder world.

I was not suggesting that God exists is a solipsistic construction. I was suggesting that there is nothing about a religious system which is logically inconsistent within its own structure. You can show examples of how it contradicts other accepted systems (e.g. science) but this is pointless because there is not standard against which to judge anything. You can cite examples of apparent contradictions in the bible but biblical scholars have very reasonable counter-arguments to these apparent contradictions which fit very nicely into their own structure. Moreover pointing out a few minor contradictions in a system does not undermine it truthfulness. Physics currently has two seperate systems which apparently contradict one another; Newtonian and Quantum. Neither is sufficent to explain all physical phenomenon and they say radically different and contradictory things. No one seems to have a problem with this contradiction. Science has an unlimited number of "get out of jail free" cards to say "sorry, I don't know". Religion never gets a free ride.

The logic you apply to the argument that some religious doctrine is harmful can be applied to make any argument at all. Laws against murder are harmful to the gun industry. Laws against child pornography are harmful to the porn industry. You have (unless I hae grossly misunderstood you) suggested that regligion ultimately an "intellectually bankrupt" enterprise which is "stupid/harmful" and should be abandoned. Now you appear to be arguing that there are aspects of religion which have undesirable outcomes. Show me something that does have undesirable outcomes; science certainly has had its share.

If one wants to say that one personally believes that science is a more useful system than religion, go ahead. One can think that theists have opted for an inferior system which has fewer benefits and more negative consequences - no problem. What one can't do is provide a coherent argument showing that they are Wrong.

The work of Thomas Kuhn may be of interest to you. It is on his work some of my arguments are based although his intended scope was more narrow applying most directly to the history of science. The thoughts of Richard Rorty informed the bulk of my position (although more widely applied again).

And just to make sure the record is straight, I don't personally "believe" in God. Having said that, I know that I have absolutely no grounds on which to call into question the beliefs others have in God. It is not a question I can possibly answer so I elect to plead No Contest instead. I can neither provide a good argument for God's existence nor his non-existance. In the end, all I can say is that I do not feel compelled to believe. Another example; I am a vegan (as my moniker suggests). While I feel VERY passionately about the treatment of animals and strongly object morally to the consumption of them, I know that I cannot provide an argument proving my position as correct or more true. It saddens me, but I accept it for what it is.

Take care and nice chatting with you.

@VeganOverlord,

It was definitely interesting chatting with you and hearing your opinions.

---

"If the Scientist believes that his system is "true" in the larger sense of that word and that it is capable of explaining all aspects of existence then he needs to tackle all the questions, not the ones he has convenient answers to"

Science does tackle all questions--it just doesn't have factual answers for all of them yet. See, saying "I don't know" is still a TRUE answer to any question science cannot answer.

---

"Show me the scientific evidence for "compassion". "

I'm not sure what this even means. Show you the evidence in what sense? A video of someone showing compassion to another person?

I think a big problem that religion spreads is a fault way of thinking. People are used to making incomplete thoughts because religious claims have corrupted their logic.

Here is what I mean. A religious claim might say: "Cut off the foreskin from the penis".

A scientific claim might say: "Cut off the foreskin from the penis if you want to ease cleaning." or "Do not remove the foreskin from the penis if you want to leave the maximum number of sensitivity."

It doesn't make any incomplete thoughts. It tells you what to do to achieve a certain goal...rooted in reality.

---

"Physics currently has two seperate systems which apparently contradict one another; Newtonian and Quantum...No one seems to have a problem with this contradiction."

Everyone has a problem with it, that's why people are constantly coming up with more accurate models of reality. Everything from Einsteins Unified Field Theory, to String Theory.

However, Newton's physics is "good enough" in most cases. It's "useful" even if not 100% accurate.

Once again, a true scientist will say, "Use this equation to figure out how much fuel should go into a missile" not something dogmatic like, "This equation is the end-all-be-all holiest of holies that must be worshiped and never challenged"

Remember, science is "the best we know" at any given time--it's constantly changing and becoming more accurate and useful.

---

"Laws against murder are harmful to the gun industry. Laws against child pornography are harmful to the porn industry."

Science does not make such laws...emotional people do--often influenced by religions...

Just like I might think that being stupid and irrational are things to avoid, others might think logic and intellectualism are things to avoid. Due to my own biases I value logic and science and reality, another person might value irrationality, metaphysics, and imagination.

Obviously both exist because presumably there is some evolutionary advantage to both.

There is nothing objective that "proves" murder or child pornography is "wrong"... it is us, humans, who have decided so. We could just as easily decide that the color blue is "wrong" and should be outlawed.

If I am a supporter of the pork industry, I might consider the Bible a harmful book as it advocates against pork.

There is nothing objective about this. I am not an abstract objective entity--I'm a subjective person. My problems with religion are subjective--they do not contribute to whether or not religions are contrary to reality, they are just my own preferences same as my favorite food or my favorite pair of jeans.

---

"You can cite examples of apparent contradictions in the bible but biblical scholars have very reasonable counter-arguments to these apparent contradictions which fit very nicely into their own structure."

There is no "structure" absent reality. The bible doesn't start laying out a metaphysical set of postulates--it starts by describing reality--the creation of the earth, and the animals/people which live there.

Therefore, the bible directly tramples over NON-metaphysical structures.

A mathematical system, like, Euclidean geometry, for instance, is metaphysical. It describes "shapes" and metaphysical entities and is concerned with them. Although it can be useful in reality, it does not trample over it as it is completely separate.

Religion is not. Religion directly concerns itself with reality--and then falls flat on it's face.

---

"What one can't do is provide a coherent argument showing that they are Wrong."

Yes, one easily can show whether or not a specific claim is true or false.

For instance, if someone claims, "This chair is real" they are claiming that it is manifest in reality. If no chair is manifest in reality, then one can easily say that the person making the claim is "Wrong" (in respect to that claim).

If someone claims, "My God is real" then they are claiming that God is manifest in reality. If no God is manifest in reality, then one can easily say that the person making the claim is Wrong.

If the person then says, "No, I meant God is real in a metaphysical plane, or imagination land, or in my mind" then there is no problem.

If they claim that God can transition between a metaphysical realm and the real world, and can influence the real world based on some specific and defined system (i.e. prayer works), one can easily prove this claim wrong by showing them the statistics which indicate prayers are not answered at a higher rate than pure chance.

Religious claims are easily proven "Wrong" once they enter into the realm of reality, precisely because reality is the realm of science.

You can have fun thought experiments separated from the real world all you want. In fact, I love doing this. But, that is not my problem with religions.

Religions make unreal claims and then demand real-world actions. That's my problem.

---

" I am a vegan (as my moniker suggests). While I feel VERY passionately about the treatment of animals and strongly object morally to the consumption of them, I know that I cannot provide an argument proving my position as correct or more true. It saddens me, but I accept it for what it is."

You can't say "eating meat is wrong" because that's the kind of dogmatic nonsense that is wrong with religious thinking.

You COULD make specific claims backed up by science to influence somebody to not eat meat.

For instance, you could show the health benefits of a vegan diet.

You could show statistics about the environmental effects of industrial meat production, land-use concerns, etc.

You can't tell someone what to do, but you can help them find reasons to act in the way you want based on their own desire for _______ (health, efficient land use, slower climate change, etc.)