WWLabRat

But religion did, at it's origin, create a basis for morals and from there, society had a chance to take hold. So while it may not provide much usefulness for us today, it did play a role in our past. Whether morals would have come into play without ancient religions is anyone's guess. I'm not an anthropologist nor historian, so I won't go down that road. However religious beliefs have woven their way into almost every aspect of society today. In the Western world, it seems to have less hold than that of other regions. However if you look at the middle east, Islam is so tightly woven into their society that it is within their very speech. Whether just saying "Good morning" or "I'll see you later" their equivalent translations involve Allah. Yes, we have our sayings "Oh my God!", "Bless you", and "Holy shit", but it's still possible to keep religion at arms' length.

If all matter were in a state of pushing vs pulling, then the universe as we see and know it wouldn't be able to exist. All matter would have gone from a state of high density to a state of low density. As the particles push around, they would of course collide with other particles and would then continue equal and opposite movement from there. Yes, we see this in the universe already. Where? In gaseous matter it's the most apparent. However, to say that gravity is an outward force you would have to see that nothing in the world would be able to hold together. The dust clouds that formed the sun and other stars along with the planets wouldn't be able to exist because there would have been no force to draw them to that center of gravity. If your assertion that gravity acts outward is correct, then as those particles got closer together, they would then start to push each other away.

The whole point of repeated scientific processes is to prove that the previous theory/hypothesis was incorrect or inaccurate. And just as they weren't providing evidence of their stance, neither were you. Both sides are in the wrong with this. Don't ask for evidence for something if you are unwilling/unable to provide it yourself. Don't start another endless argument. That was a neutral statement made to let everyone else know why they should just skip over those pages. All those involved have done nothing but prolong the endless empty posts.

Part of the reason I didn't phrase it that way is that one could easily say that science can't have an absolute Truth either. That science is fallible. However, science does admit that it hasn't reached perfect truth yet.

Korn - Falling Away From Me

From an outside perspective, that's what it seems your/Iggy's argument boils down to. My view is that it is possible too. I've pointed it out as well. I believe that I operate with a scientific mind, yet I also believe in a "higher being" (post #126). Seeing that science is a process, not a belief system, the two are able to be possessed by the same person. Science is a method by which we can observe the physical world. Religion/spirituality is a way by which to understand things greater than ourselves. Obviously not everyone is going to take the same stance on any one religion or spiritual viewpoint. In the same way, not every scientist interprets data the same way. The key difference is that science doesn't wage wars over the centuries over these views. Both sides take the data and test it on their own to see if everything checks out. The problem is that with spirituality, you can't test the views in a laboratory or draw up mathematical proofs to show that one religion is closer to the Truth than the other.

Lather, rinse, repeat for seven pages This is getting rather repetitive seeing the two of you go back and forth yet accomplishing nothing. This is why you haven't seen me post on here in a few days despite keeping an eye on it all. Now that we are here, can we please get back on topic, the topic that was posted in OP? Is it possible for a theist to have a scientific mind despite the belief in a deity?

In order for corndog defecating dragons to exist, we would have to live in a universe with a relatively low level of entropy. How would the dog get inside the cornbread? How would it be heated? Where would the wood for the stick come from? Do you know of any animal whose every feces looks identical?

The fantasy genre creature, the toy dolls, or the people?

I wish that were always the case. I try to make sure my posts are well written to keep misunderstanding to a minimum, although there are times where the aggressive ignorant will try to repeat things endlessly to make sure you know they are there. Unfortunately, as well written as I like to think my posts are (one of which was in Speculations) people will respond however they see fit, with or without moderation. Best thing to do on any forum is to not feed the trolls. This is because when trolls are fed, they produce troll ATP at an exponential rate and then there's just no stopping that much energy without banning.

Unity+, Md65536 has a point. removing it Speculation would in a way, kill science. Scientific study started as a means to understand things. Hypotheses that help to make great leaps in discovery are sometimes from a speculative point and they just happen to be right. Yeah, there will also be crackpots who will argue for Theory X, when the common known and accepted theory is Theory Y. Speculation also allows for brainstorming. At least when done properly... Also, if you get rid of Speculation, which does have some scientific basis, then there would be no need to keep the Religion section as religion is oil to science's water. And just as there are crackpots trolling the Speculation section, there's just as many zealots trolling the Religion forum as well.

Just think: Hindenburg 2.0. Only this time we would already have seen clearly the effects of using a flammable gas for lift instead of a more stable gas (i.e. He)

Retroviruses are also known to be linked with certain cancers because of their altering genetic data. The retroviruses used in gene therapy are also used to correct genetic defects, not alter good genes.

I hate having to say this yet again in the same thread, but can we please keep everything in this discussion on topic, ffs? It's turning into yet another pissing contest without anything being added to what the OP intended this thread to cover. In case any forgot, this discussion, as it states in the title is about "Theistic Scientists". For those who don't understand what that means, it's a scientist whose believes are that of a higher power despite lack of physical, measurable, and observable scientific data to support the existence of a deity. Iggy, please, for Pete's sake, stop pulling the discussion off topic by acting as if statements made by a member is a personal attack on a different user. First of all, this is against the religion forum rules. I've already posted about that before. Second, if anyone should be offended or to take it as a personal attack, it's the person at whom it would have been aimed, which was not you. That I have been able to discern from her posts, Pear doesn't think that Ringer was attacking her. Also, when quoting anyone, read their entire post to make sure you have a firm grasp of what they are saying before you assume you know what it is by just reading the first sentence or two. Reading these posts isn't a speed race. You won't get a prize by being the first to reply to a post at the cost of retarding the discussion. And no, retarding isn't meant as an insult. I'm using it in the sense of It would be nice for this discussion to be able to continue forward, full force without any need for intervening from the Mod squad. So, in the interest of this, please keep things on topic, everyone.

It wouldn't be possible, at least with modern technology, to genetically modify yourself. Ever heard of cancer? It's what happens when genetic material mutates within an already living being. This is why stuff like comic book superheros couldn't exist. An individual's genetic code is exactly what it is. However, the engineering of offspring would potentially be plausible if the genome sequence from both parents was known explicitly and you had the ability to alter specific portions of either to make the desirable outcome. Even still, trying to purposefully mutate the genetic material would almost certainly backfire. At that point you are trying to keep stop evolution by not allowing natural selection to take place.

Although it's 24 minutes long, I love this song...

You and I quoted the same line from Ringer, therefore, one can only assume that we did, in fact, read the same post. And again, you missed the rest of what I had said. For your benefit, I'll go ahead and highlight what you need to focus on in regards to the blanket. Please be sure to read it in full so that you understand it all. I hope this clears up your confusion.

This is where evolution comes into play. Evolution of a species will always trend toward that which is better able to survive a particular environment. It's also not a fast process. it takes many generations to see change in a species. So how does change come about? Mutations in the genetic code is the popular answer. Example: A deadly virus attacks humans. It's lethal to anyone who happens to have brown eye color alleles in there genetic code. However, it just gives a severe illness to other eye colors like blue, green, hazel, etc. A mutation in someone whose ancestors have brown eyes could cause that person to suddenly have red eyes which not only keep them from dying from the disease, but also combat it entirely. Suddenly those with red eyes will be more desirable for procreation. That red eye allele will become a more dominant trait in the environment and it will slowly start getting passed on to more and more genetic offspring. Eventually the majority of humans may have red eyes and thus be able to survive because of that. Genetic code is the basis of life. One of the seven criteria which scientists currently define life. Without genetic material a species could not exist. There would be no way for it to pass any traits on to off spring. Even viruses (which are the closest things to living that actually aren't) have genetic code. Bacteria have genetic code. I don't see genes as ever being "irrelevant". And your genes are the same regardless of what cell at which you are looking. The only reason we have blood/nerve/skin/etc cells is because those individual cells that make up the tissue are expressing different portions of the genetic code, but your DNA is always the same. So therefore, your brain isn't capable of altering your genes.

I'm in a similar predicament, though my focus is tighter than yours. I'm trying to decide between Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and General Chemistry. Spirochete27 has a point. Physics will be very math heavy; Chemistry, not so much, but there will still be a lot of math either way. Best advise is from AJB. You need to figure out which one you can see yourself studying for hours on end. Do you want to spend that time calculating the motion of the physical world or do you want to handle the processes behind chemical interaction? And my two cents to add is this: don't be like some who change their degree 4-5 times before settling on something. If you're unsure, try to get a lower degree in something like General Studies and fill your electives with classes that would fill requirements of either degree. This way when you do settle on a path, you know it's less likely that you will change later. My older brother didn't listen to this advice when he started college and now he has spent the last 9 years going between different degrees, many times without the classes being able to transfer. However, I've just started working towards my degree (albeit years after I should have started) and am expecting to get my associates by December 2014 if everything goes well.

Arc's right, the deceased's family may want to keep it covered up or destroyed entirely. Although the person who actually discovered Event X may want people to know about it, it may be just crackpot enough for the family not to want to bear the shame of releasing said information postmortem. This may be why some who know they are going to die will actually release it to their lawyer or to another unattached individual to release so that these cover-ups don't happen. And ethics can go into this in many different ways. The deceased may feel that the people have a right to know that the president/minister/dictator said/did ____. At the same time, those who destroy the evidence may think such it would be unwise for themselves or the general public to find out what happened. Usually the latter involves a conspiracy of sorts and is an attempt to keep it from leaking out.

Again, Iggy, I think you have misread a post. Ringer clearly didn't state that Pears needs a baby blanket. He was merely equating the idea that a person may find something easier to understand or believe because it just makes sense to them. Just like a kid wanting to sleep with one particular blanket or stuffed animal because that's what they always do, not because one is better than the other. It's also about the same as a person choosing a green paint over a blue one when painting a wall. One color isn't necessarily better than the other, but it is a preference. And I don't see anywhere in his post where Ringer has indicated that emotions or beliefs do not form a basis of his decisions. It's impossible for someone to not make decisions based on their beliefs or emotions. One of the two is always involved in the decision-making process. Example: When it comes to killing someone. First thing anyone will say is that it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Some will answer by saying that God has said that it is wrong to kill. Others will say that killing others of your species goes against evolution and the need for the species to survive. Either way, the topic of murder is a subjective one. Even when it comes to the law, it's not entirely without either of these two. A court will generally rule in favor of a defendant if he killed someone who broke into his home or was assaulting a family member. Nothing is completely objective. Even scientific data isn't. We can make predictions on what will happen when a glass beaker falls to the floor because we believe that time after time of beakers falling has provided sufficient physical evidence that it will break. Your belief and faith has been put into the constant laws of physics. But there may come a time when those laws must change. At that time your belief may change as well.

Thought you would like that. That is where many arguments come. People don't bother to listen to more than a small portion of someone else's position and block out everything else, completely missing the important bits. How is WWLabRat a terrible name? This may be a bit off topic, (sorry mods) But it comes from the fact that I work in a Wastewater Laboratory. And Labrat is a colloquial term for someone who works in a laboratory doing scientific work. Seems appropriate enough for me. I did notice him repeating himself, but only because you had repeatedly stated the same thing without adding to the conversation any. iNow was at least contributing a bit each time there was a post. And they are equivalent in the fact that neither are verifiable/falsifiable. It takes physical, measurable, repeatable evidence to determine both. The dragon and god/God/deity have none of those. So by scientific standards they can't be tested to prove/deny their existence. And as doG said, one can be religious without it being attached to a deity of any sort. Take Scientology for instance. Not to knock on it, but it is based off a belief stemming from a book written in modern times. And just as ancient religions are unable to prove the existence of their deity, scientologists are unable to prove the existence of Xenu or the beings he brought with him. I know the majority of the people here who are religious tend to follow the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindi) and some of the lesser religions (Buddhism, Paganism...in all its forms, etc), but for some reason we keep focusing on just Atheists vs Christians. Religions are a philosophy, not a science. This is why chemical formulas stay balanced regardless of which country you are in or which religion (or lack thereof) you follow. However, what works for a Christian in America may not work for a Muslim in Baghdad.

Darby O'Gill - Tim Finnegan's Wake

He's not comparing them. Just showing that neither is verifiable by current scientific standards. This has been stated previously by myself and others. Please move this discussion forward and provide evidence of either or admit that there isn't proof and stop beating the same dead horse that you have for the last few pages. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. And when you read through my posts, especially if you're going to quote me, take away from it more than just one sentence. With a proper argument, there's multiple statements that should be kept together for a complete thought. I noticed in your quote that you cut out important statements that complete what I was saying. Go back and finish reading that paragraph before you continue your broken record bit.