Strange

You are free to believe that. But I bet you still appreciate the fact that science works - for example modern medicine saving lives, technology that allows you to engage in this discussion, etc. Your god doesn't do those things. We do. Oddly enough, it turns out they can. Don't be silly. Why would anyone think that? Of course not. Science deals with things that behave in a consistent manner and that are measurable and testable. That doesn't apply to your god, so science has nothing to say about it. On the other hand, the fact there is no evidence your god exists means it is reasonable to be doubtful. Only if you already believe in that creator. Otherwise it is not proof of that. Not at all. It is irrelevant to science. I'm not even sure why you are discussing this on a science forum. It is like discussing cooking on a football forum.

Both of which are pure science fiction. But in the real world, it is quite easy to modify or implant false memories.

There have been many experiments done to tests this. For example, getting people to remember things that never happened by subtly prompting them cues and questions. One example was getting people to remember meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyland (for anyone not sure about this; Bugs is not a Disney character). This shows that we need to be cautious when relying on our own memory, about stories of childhood abuse (but we must also ensure we don't just dismiss them) or stories of "past lives" (we probably can dismiss those!)

That's probably easy for you to achieve: stop posting drivel on the forum.

Even if this were true, it would not make those models wrong. You don't understand how science works, do you?

Many things that "seem" to be impossible (or possible) turn out not to be. That is why science uses objective measurements rather than personal opinions. Your "of course" is completely mistaken. If the mathematical model predicts result X and we get result X (plus or minus some error bars) then that is consistent with the theory. That's all science says. Nonsense It is a fantastic state of affairs. That is what gives us the opportunity to develop new theories and/or new tests fr existing theories (to try and find the holes in them). The world would be very boring if we knew all the answers.

I'm feeling better now!

Agreed. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. (It's your thread, so you should know this.) Obviously, there are people who don't believe the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang, or that the large scale structure of the universe is formed by gravity or that the Earth is round. So what? That is totally irrelevant. Your question was whether you can be religious and still believe in theories of evolution. And the answer is obviously "yes". Pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that some people don't doesn't change that fact. It is like I asked if you can have two legs and believe the Earth is round. Then, when someone points out that there are people with two legs who believe the Earth is round, you say "but some people with two legs don't believe that". Can you not see how unbelievably, monumentally irrelevant that comment is? Sheesh.

Reported for spamming No it isn't. Pi is normally represented by the lower case π rather than the upper case form Π. In fact, I have never seen the latter used. But you seem to be basing this idea on a superficial similarity in form between the Hebrew letter Heth and (upper case Pi). But what about He or Taw? They also resemble Pi. And, obviously, the letter Heth (and He and Taw) appears throughout the bIble not just in this chapter and verse. So, like all numerologists, you have noticed one approximate and inaccurate and assumed it has far greater significance than it does. Could you also explain how the authors of the Old Testament text knew that in 1700 (ish) someone would decide to use the (lower case) Pi as a shorthand for a number? I think we will be the judge of that. (AndI am fairly certain the answer would be: "oh no it doesn't; it just more ludicrous".) But thanks for posting the stupidest thread I have seen for a while. Quite amusing.

Did you? His name is Farrow. But maybe you decided to leapfrog the correct spelling. Why? This is a science site where most people know just a little bit about science and therefore can see that your ideas are wrong. Even if they don't know enough physics to dismiss them instantly, they can see you have absolutely no basis for your claims: no model, no math, no evidence.... As even you can't do that, why should anyone else? We haven't even seen the car yet. Just claims that it exists and "it really is shiny, honest. Or it will be if someone can help me polish it. Well, I'll need someone to help me build it first. And ..."

Who is "Ferrell"? (This is typical of your sloppy approach) And he was either fooling himself or attempt to con other people.

The equation doesn't matter if it produces the wrong result. Sorry, I'll stick with the evidence rather than baseless claims of some random guy on the Internet.

That is not what swansont said. You (or Einstein or anyone else) can present a new theory in the appropriate part of the forum. That would need to be supported with a mathematical model and evidence. If you can do that, then great. I have seen two or three examples (on another forum) where people have successfully defended and modified their idea, and then on to get it published. So it is not impossible.

Reported for multiple rule violations. What is wrong with you?

Stop spamming this drivel.

If it helps, this appears to be the source: https://books.google.it/books?id=Po0zyO0BFzwC&pg=PA274#v=onepage

Anyone can describe what they visualise. It has no value unless you can show quantitatively (mathematically) that the effects you claim would result. You really should learn some basic physics and then you might be able to: demonstrate what you are talking about; work out if it would work or not; understand the refutations given; use terminology in the correct way; and so on. As noted, "leapfrogging" (*) an education is not a useful way to do anything. Would you be happy seeing a car mechanic or a doctor who said they had "leapfrogged" education and were making it up as they go along? (*) is it still called "leapfrogging" if you go backwards?

Well, physicists and other scientists speculate about "reality" and "meaning" and other meaningless concepts just as much as anyone else. But note that it is not science any more. And there are things like interpretations of theories, which attempt to provide an explanation of what the theory means; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

You are mixing up two different (although related) concepts. The so-called "selfish DNA" (or "selfish genetic element") replicates itself within the genome. It may have no (or unknown) functions but that doesn't stop it trying to copy itself. Because that is one of the things that genetic material is designed to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_genetic_element The "selfish gene" concept is about a gene-centred view of evolution (of populations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene No one claimed that there was any consciousness involved. No one said it did. But most genes (you may be surprised to know) have functions other than just replicating themselves. Why says it is?

I would guess there is a general tendency to either think that "we" are more morally enlightened than our ancestors (who used to inflict cruel punishments for minor crimes and mistreat their horses) or that there was a Golden Age and modern society is going to hell in a hand basket. No doubt some people hold both views at the same time, with regard to their personal preferences. Absolutely. I think it is essential that "we" (both as individuals and as a society) think deeply about what we think right and wrong mean.

Well, for example, cultural norms have changed dramatically in England over the last 400 years (as the thread started off reference Shakespeare) and even over my lifetime. I would be interested in seeing MathGeek's explanation of that, or an example of a culture where morality has not changed over some significant amount of time. That is a good point. It raises (or rather, emphasises) the question of how one is to know what this "true" objective morality is. (I suspect it is the set of rules that MathGeek believes are right. But maybe that is too cynical.)

Can you explain the connection between the thread title and the question in the OP? OK. Never mind, the Wikipedia article explains the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe I wonder if there is any way of testing this, or if it is just an interpretation. (I guess the latter, in which case you can accept if it appeals to you or not if it doesn't.)

The publisher and the writer are the ones who would be sued if it really is plagiarism. The only other person who would care would be the person whose work was copied (and their publisher). They are the people you should contact as they are the only ones who can take action on this. (Well, Wiley could decide to withdraw the book themselves, if they decided it really was plagiarism.) I doubt anyone here cares, so there is little point posting it here.

I don't believe that can be the (only) reason. A great many very thoughtful people (theologians, philosophers and, yes, even scientists) have varying views on the contents of the bible.

I don't know if Google might use its translating magic to look for meanings in other languages (eg English if you are searching from .com or .co.uk) Doesn't work in Japanese (lots of manga I don't recognise and Beat Takeshi who, I seem to remember, had a film of that name - or maybe he is just an idiot!) In Italian the results are dominated by a popular idiota meme, with Trump appearing about half way down the page.