Official Religious Debate Thread

[The Epic Guy]

No, his point was valid. Proof is irrelevant in science.

Proof is the foundation of science.

[a-4-year-old]

Science begins with a hypothesis and ends with the proof. What were you taught? Math?

[Lord Frunkamunch]

If you want to get completely technical about it, no; science can't 'prove' anything.

Copy pasta:

    Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist.

[The Geologist]

Bit backwards there.  Science can prove lots of things.  Your example just talks about how science can't prove something doesn't exist.

There's a big difference.

[ds dude]

Science can prove gravitational forces. Science can see how the big bang theory works, but cannot prove it because we lack certain technology.

[~Niko~]

We'll know some day, you will see... well, maybe not

[SDFilm]

Do we need to run through this again? Many portions of the Genesis story are not literal. Incl. "day 3""day 5" etc. Evolution is compatible because those details need not be taken literally.

So Christianity is in bed with Darwin now? That's news to me.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Bit backwards there.  Science can prove lots of things.  Your example just talks about how science can't prove something doesn't exist.

There's a big difference.

while you may be right in what you are referring (realistically) to id like to point out that perhaps frunkamunch was referring to the grand scheme of things

i think it would be a good thing to consider that perhaps some things you think are completely provable are not. things can be proven, or they cannot, or both, or none, or none of those but some of this, or a description that humans cant even understand, or perhaps there is no description etc

what im trying to say is that in a topic like this you have to be rather careful with what you are certain about, because ultimately you are only human

[The Geologist]

Many of the things I consider provable are, and have been, proven.  I'm not saying science can prove anything, but to think that we can prove nothing is just a joke. 

[Lord Frunkamunch]

I don't personally go by that definition (it's kind of asinine shouting "No they didn't!" every time someone says "scientists proved so and so", because by that point you're just getting anal over semantics). I was just trying to clarify what I think N. Escalona was getting at.

[GSx_Major]

no i am saying there is not sufficient evidence for me to suggest that we came from monkeys

You don't know of sufficient evidence. Here's a good start,
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm

we share 85% with mice! does this mean we evolved from mice - chimp - homo sapien?

Yes, we all know we evolved banana - mice - monkey - (short retro wave back to banana) - human. Different branches...

[excruciator]

Science works mainly by disproving hypothesis. You are right, there is no way to truly prove something. But if it can't be proven wrong, then it's most likely right.

Lets go back to the unicorns. Lets say people hypothesize that unicorn do not exist. And it haven't been proven wrong. Then it's most likely correct.

I'd call that an indirect proof.

[a-4-year-old]

Then its a theory.  You guys seriously need to go back to 6th grade.

[GSx_Major]

As is your existance, yet here you are...

[N. Escalona]

Do we need to run through this again? Many portions of the Genesis story are not literal. Incl. "day 3""day 5" etc. Evolution is compatible because those details need not be taken literally.

Yes, every time with every person I do. It seems "not taking it literally" means "ignoring it". I'd like to hear you non-literal interpretation of it. Also, God is logic, not confusion, and wouldn't say it if it wasn't true, etc. But alright, I'll give you that if you reject a lot of the bible (which you clearly have no trouble with, which is fine but kinda comical - free ranging fundamentalism) then it can allow for the big bang theory and evolution.

I don't reject any of the Bible. I reject certain interpretations of the Bible. That means that for practical purposes I am rejecting the denotative meanings of many of the words in that section of Genesis. The bit describing the order of creation is probably not literally true, but instead a metaphorical representation of the truth. Why is this so hard for people to understand? We do it with every other piece of literature under the sun, but nooo, the Bible has to be taken literally.

Proof is irrelevant in science? Gee, do elaborate.

Proof is a concept of logic. It is probably impossible to prove any scientific result. Evidence is the key in science. The distinction is not trivial!

Are you all christian because someone told you about god or because you truly wanted to believe in?

Both.

[The Geologist]

Proof is a concept of logic. It is probably impossible to prove any scientific result. Evidence is the key in science. The distinction is not trivial!

Science has lots of evidence.  It also has some proof, which removes all doubt from a given hypothesis.  This proof is necessarily rooted in logic to be valid and accepted.  Both are critical once found.

[N. Escalona]

Can you give an example of this kind of proof?

[The Geologist]

Can you give an example of this kind of proof?

Sure.  Plate tectonics, which stemmed from the hypothesis of continental drift.  What was originally investigated as an idea that the continents seemed to "fit together" became, with more evidence, a solidified and proven hypothesis that the lithosphere of the Earth consists of numerous tectonic plates situated atop the mantle.

Early evidence came in the form of differing magnetic orientation of rocks on either side of what we know today as spreading centers, such as those found in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.  While figuring out these areas were actually portions of the Earth's lithosphere being spread apart by molten material rising from below is another story, run with me here and take my word that we did it.  Sent probes down, took samples, found elevated temperatures and evidence of igneous activity.  Point being - we have roughly symmetrical "bands" of rock on either side of these spreading centers that have mirrored magnetic orientations.  At certain times in Earth's history the poles change positions, and molten rocks brought up at these spreading centers record this as they cool. 

F.Y.I., this phenomenon has also been reproduced and studied in the lab.

This was the beginning, in a way - we have all these neat, symmetrical "bands" of rock on either side of these spreading centers.  Surely this must mean there are tectonic plates, and they these areas are pushing these plates apart, right?  Well, yes, but since you asked I'll give you more evidence, which leads to proof.

The chemistry of volcanic arcs is an interesting thing.  You see, the composition of lavas is derived from the rocks that are melted and brought to the surface.  Seems kinda obvious.  But what I want to point out is this - after studying the composition of volcanic arcs around the world, and the composition of the rocks around those volcanoes, and the composition of basaltic rocks on the sea floor, it has become very clear that the types of rocks we see in collisional areas (i.e. between an oceanic plate and a continental plate) are unique.  These studies are based off of things like REE chemistry and the like, of which particular elemental ratios are attributed to particular types of rocks.  Take Rock A, subduct it under Rock B where two tectonic plates meet, and when Rock A melts and begins to move up through Rock B it will have a unique composition that is not found elsewhere.  Or rather, cannot be found elsewhere, unless tectonic plates are in motion and are eventually subducting beneath one another.

Additionally, we have GPS data nowadays, which proves (without a doubt) that these tectonic plates are moving.  There's really no argument there.  Place two GPS stations on either side of a major fault, or on top of a mountain range that's situated atop a major collisional zone (i.e. the Himalaya) and we see motion.  It's not a trick of the math or some artifact of the data.  These bodies of rock are actively moving.

Also, there are temperature studies.  Did you know that subduction zones are actually cooler at depth than most other areas?  Lots of people think that the Earth just gets hotter and hotter as you move to the mantle and deeper.  In fact, some areas have a perturbed geotherm, like subduction zones.  This is due to, among other things, the loss of water while a dense piece of oceanic crust is subducted beneath the less buoyant continental crust.  You may ask, why do we know the temperatures are lower in these areas?  This is due to the unique minerals we see in these areas. High pressure, low temperature minerals like glaucophane are prevalent in, and often associated with, subduction zones. 

Seismic data also exists which can image subduction zones, but that's honestly not my bag and I don't know that much about it.  I've only seen images if subduction zones in a few articles I've read.

I could probably think of some more evidence, but I'm a bit tired.  Thing is, all this evidence becomes proof once it piles up.  There's really no other explanation, or reason to doubt, plate tectonics.  It is a proven hypothesis.

I've come across one crackpot website that says it's all a sham, and that the Earth is just expanding (a load of rubbish, without any data to back it up).  But it this were the case, we'd see a lot more evidence of extension tectonics around the globe.  But since we see, in addition to the reasons listed above, vast mountain ranges and a culmination of magmatic activity at collisional areas (where we can track one plate moving into another), it's clearly not the case. 

Edit: Convection drives the whole thing.  It's almost 4am.  I'm tired, I'm done.

[GSx_Major]

I don't reject any of the Bible. I reject certain interpretations of the Bible. That means that for practical purposes I am rejecting the denotative meanings of many of the words in that section of Genesis. The bit describing the order of creation is probably not literally true, but instead a metaphorical representation of the truth. Why is this so hard for people to understand? We do it with every other piece of literature under the sun, but nooo, the Bible has to be taken literally.

I didn't realize even you considered the bible fiction. I would have thought it was a problem to just ignore (sorry, not interpret literally) such a large part, but I guess not. Of course you can't read a religious text like the back of a dvd. Also, 30 verses that specifically (used to base rituals on) just as a single metaphor, that sounds about right.

Geologist, that was enlightning. Thanks for taking the time to write all that.

[a-4-year-old]

As is your existance, yet here you are...

No. My existence can be tested. Like I might make an experiment, "Am I here right now, taking up space and made out of matter? Yes, indeed I am." Experiment over now where is my nobel prize.

If you haven't noticed I'm a Christian but when you try to say that science is a load of crap your credibility goes down the toilet. Thats probably the worst thing about being a christian, theres plenty of people around to make you look bad.