Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    some of Newtons laws when put in extreme enviroments?
    they have not been disproved, but modified. they are a specific case of a general equation, the specifics being that the frame of reference is moving at a fraction of the speed of light, or they are being observed on an atomic scale. like i said before, the only reason newton did not know about these cases was because he had no means of examining them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Scientific theories are adaptable - so can always be modified to better explain phenomena. Religion cannot constantly change as a result human experience in the same way (I suppose that would go against the point of religion) - so it doesn't seem to 'fit'. Maybe religion is just extremely outdated science.

    Ben
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    they have not been disproved, but modified. they are a specific case of a general equation, the specifics being that the frame of reference is moving at a fraction of the speed of light, or they are being observed on an atomic scale. like i said before, the only reason newton did not know about these cases was because he had no means of examining them
    Fair enough, point taken. I still maintain that science is built on some uncertainties as per my previous post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    However science cant deal with a few basic things lilke what is charge and mass? or why is the speed of light 3^8 or the mass of an electron 9.1^-31 ect. if these constants were different then the universe as we know it wouldnt exsist and there would be no life
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Fair enough, point taken. I still maintain that science is built on some uncertainties as per my previous post.
    religion is built on bigger uncertainties than science
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Religion looks for the truth. Why should science have any more crediblity - many scientific laws have been shown to be false yet they were classed as proof before that.

    Descarte said, the brances of the tree are the applied sciences, the trunk maths/physics and the roots is what it is based on the assumptions science makes and that is about the very nature of reality, the existence of the external world and ultimatly ourselves and science just assumes these and certainties we can build upon. Many philosophers dealing with metaphysics would beg to differ on that point, the roots that science basis itself on are not infact certain and therefore science is built on shaky foundations.
    Religion doesn't look for the truth though. When you "join" a religion you subscribe yourself to some theories which were invented by philosophers ages ago and become widely believed. Like the 7-day creation theory in christianity. Quite obviously complete junk and the scientific evolution theory, which actually has substance to it, proves that it didn't happen. There's no point in believing something if it has no form of proof at all to it. Science has all the proof you need; it comes over time.

    There are also logical non-"science is better" based arguments against religions. Such as why there is good and bad in the world and not just good? Surely "God" wouldn't create both? Or would sort things out??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _EMMA_)
    and then the law changes, (as the example that has been used before the earth that you before thought was flat) whereas religion don't it is the same. has religion more credibility because it never changes?
    What, total rigidity is to be praised? Something that is too stubborn to change when it needs to is more credible that something that can recognise when it is wrong and moves to rectify that?
    (Sorry if that was a rhetorical question)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suspicious_fish)
    Could you give us a brief synopsis of string theory, please? Not everyone's doing physics, here.....
    Everything is made from one dimensional strings. some are loops, some are open ended. The way in which these vibrate and oscilate defind what particle they are, in a similar way to the number of electrons a nucleus has defined its chemistry. This unifying theory explains how gravity can be integrated into quantum mechanics.

    The main point I believe is that when a string fuses to make another string, there is no point when they actually fuse when looked at it from different angles, unlike with point-like particles. imagine two tunnels merging. If you take two cross sections of when they merge at two angles they appear to merge at different times. Now replace the direction of the tunnel with time, and you get string shapes. when two strings merge, there is no definite time point.

    This works with quantum mechanics because that states basically that nothing can be proven to be in one point at one time - there is always a degree of uncertanty. (if you want to track a proton, you can alter the amount of photons shone at it. more photons mean that you are more certain of where it is, but the photons alter the proton's path so you didn't know where it was travelling before, the less photons the more likely it will travel in its original path but the harder it is to find that path. Therefore it is impossible to know exactly where anything is, and we have to use probabilities.

    I hope that makes sense.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddock)
    Religion doesn't look for the truth though. When you "join" a religion you subscribe yourself to some theories which were invented by philosophers ages ago and become widely believed. Like the 7-day creation theory in christianity. Quite obviously complete junk and the scientific evolution theory, which actually has substance to it, proves that it didn't happen. There's no point in believing something if it has no form of proof at all to it. Science has all the proof you need; it comes over time.

    There are also logical non-"science is better" based arguments against religions. Such as why there is good and bad in the world and not just good? Surely "God" wouldn't create both? Or would sort things out??
    The bible is now very rarely taken as literal, very few educated Christians (to my knowledge) think creation happened in 7 days. Besides, you have avoided the point that science is built on assumptions so surely this means although it may appear to be a proof it infact is not?

    Elpaw - I am not trying to claim Religion is any better, I myself am much more for science. Merely for the sake of argument trying to put another side across since its boring with everyone agreeing.
    We require some element of bad, because if there was ONLY good then everyone must succeed at everything etc etc and that would make the world unable to function.

    Elpaw - I am not trying to claim Religion is any better, I myself am much more for science. Merely for the sake of argument trying to put another side across since its boring with everyone agreeing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    However science cant deal with a few basic things lilke what is charge and mass? or why is the speed of light 3^8 or the mass of an electron 9.1^-31 ect. if these constants were different then the universe as we know it wouldnt exsist and there would be no life
    They're not basic thing, they're massively complex. And asking the question "why is the speed of light 3^8?" is like asking "why does grass reflect the particular wavelength of light that makes it look green?" - it's something we observe but have no reason to explain - it just is. If those constants were different there might not be life, it's true - c.f. the theory od parallel universes.
    I must be off now, so don't think I'm just backing out of this debate. Imagine I'm here, OK?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ben.S.)
    Scientific theories are adaptable - so can always be modified to better explain phenomena. Religion cannot constantly change as a result human experience in the same way (I suppose that would go against the point of religion) - so it doesn't seem to 'fit'. Maybe religion is just extremely outdated science.

    Ben
    It is just outdated science. Before the days things like electricity were discovered, we could only speculate to explain things. Certain religions become widespead as they were the only way of explaining things. They've stuck around becuase they were so widespread. The same happens now with science, but these days people actually try to prove things before believing them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suspicious_fish)
    They're not basic thing, they're massively complex. And asking the question "why is the speed of light 3^8?" is like asking "why does grass reflect the particular wavelength of light that makes it look green?" - it's something we observe but have no reason to explain - it just is. If those constants were different there might not be life, it's true - c.f. the theory od parallel universes.
    I must be off now, so don't think I'm just backing out of this debate. Imagine I'm here, OK?
    when i say basic i mean fundamental so i hope that clears up the first bit. the grass colour tho doesnt really matter since is grass absorbed a different wavelength then the universe would still exist something that isnt true for the speed of light.
    and the arguement there are infinite universes with all the different possible combinations of constants sounds no better than it was created by god to me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    The bible is now rarely take as literal, you still have avoided the problem that science relies on things we are not sure of.

    Elpaw - I am not trying to claim Religion is any better, I myself am much more for science. Merely for the sake of argument trying to put another side across since its boring with everyone agreeing.

    We require some element of bad, because if there was ONLY good then everyone must succeed at everything etc etc and that would make the world unable to function.
    If you don't take the bible literally, doesn't that defeat the point of Christianity though?
    Of course there must be some element of bad, but with the amount of problems in the world it can't have been created by some omnipotent being as they would have either made sure they didn't happen in the first place, or sort them out when they did happen. I mean war, hunger, etc.

    RE: "science relies on things we are not sure of".

    Yes, it does. But it also relies on things we ARE sure of :P Equations. constants and suchlike have been proved to exist, and more and more is proved as time goes on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    when i say basic i mean fundamental so i hope that clears up the first bit. the grass colour tho doesnt really matter since is grass absorbed a different wavelength then the universe would still exist something that isnt true for the speed of light.
    and the arguement there are infinite universes with all the different possible combinations of constants sounds no better than it was created by god to me
    Infinte universes remains yet mystery.
    And will be soon figured with the power of science!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHANDY)
    Infinte universes remains yet mystery.
    And will be soon figured with the power of science!!
    there is as much chance of God being detected as infinite universes so why believe in infinite universes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHANDY)
    Whose side you on?
    God definatly conqures Science.

    CAN Anyone tell me how was the univers was created?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    there is as much chance of God being detected as infinite universes so why believe in infinite universes?
    Actually, infinite universes is a much more feasible theory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naz1)
    God definatly conqures Science.

    CAN Anyone tell me how was the univers was created?
    Ask me again in 1000 years and I'd probably be able to tell you.

    Oh wait.....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddock)
    Actually, infinite universes is a much more feasible theory
    good to see lots of reasons why and evidence for this belief! they are both beliefs, neither is more right! since there is no evidence!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ok ok people so the underlying assumption is that science is based on facts and God/religion is based on theories or predictions. Am I right or wrong?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.