[Kazan]

Scottish: did _you_ observe them?  Did anyone you know observe them? can anyone PROVE they were observed?

Just beause it is written in a book doesn't make it true.

[StratComm]

That's only valid if we take a literal reading of the Bible as being 100% true.  There's a lot there - especially Old Testament stuff - that's as much myth as it is history, if you try to look at it impartially, so we cannot just blanket accept all of it as being "as it happened" without that key aspect of faith.  Besides, none of those things are reproducable, which is very important - actually essential - for the validation of any theory.

[Scottish]

Well the Theory of Relativity - meaning it's most pertainent examples - can't be demonstrated reliably under any conditions.

And I'm pretty sure neither of you have ever observed it in action, nor know of anyone who has.

[Kazan]

yes it can, and it has been

ignorance is not an excuse

[Scottish]

No, it's hasn't.

They've demonstrated ASPECTS of it, but they've yet to reliably demonstrate the whole 'time bendy' part of it. And even if they managed to, there's still the small matter of its effects being entirely subjective and therefore ridiculously unreliable.

[StratComm]

I believe there was a satelite launched quite recently designed to test just that, actually.  They can be tested, it just takes rediculous amounts of hardware to look at it as it occurs over such a grand scope.  You cannot test for God, therefore science can not describe his existance one way or another.

[Scottish]

That measured the curvature of space caused by the presence of Earth's gravitational field - not the time-bendy stuff.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Scottish
No, it's hasn't.

They've demonstrated ASPECTS of it, but they've yet to reliably demonstrate the whole 'time bendy' part of it. And even if they managed to, there's still the small matter of its effects being entirely subjective and therefore ridiculously unreliable.

Incorrect. The predicted time dilation effects were recorded on board a Concorde jet using a pair of highly sensitive clocks.

This has been a public service announcement.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Scottish
Well the Theory of Relativity - meaning it's most pertainent examples - can't be demonstrated reliably under any conditions.

And I'm pretty sure neither of you have ever observed it in action, nor know of anyone who has.

It has been observed.  Its fairly easy to observe and line up all the numbers.  For me, I don't do the math so well so I just understand the before and after.

God is frankly outside of the scientific realm.  Since God has not been observed or not observed its quite hard to do any sort of scientific testing.  And I think its honestly better that way.  Our beliefs and scientific observation do not have to conflict.

Religion is (or can be) a guide to helping friends, neighbors, family and trying to do the right thing.  Science is a guide to why a hammer drops drop on your toe and then explains is a very easy to demonstrate way why it hurts.

Different things for different people so I guess these meanings can only be imparted on myself

[Scottish]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Incorrect. The predicted time dilation effects were recorded on board a Concorde jet using a pair of highly sensitive clocks.

This has been a public service announcement.

All of which can be explained by simple probability. If you accelerate ****, it undergoes stresses. These stresses could very easily 'quirk' the [presumably] caesium clocks used.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Scottish
That measured the curvature of space caused by the presence of Earth's gravitational field - not the time-bendy stuff.

According to relativity, it's all essentially the same stuff.  Unless you're refering to time dialation effects, which are another matter entirely.  And which have been demonstrated under a variety of conditions.

[Scottish]

I cite Pastafarianism.

Just because things look to be following a predicted pattern doesn't mean they are.

Only the very insane/devoted believe the decline of pirates has actually lead to an increase in global temperatures - but the funny little graph still holds true.

[StratComm]

Science looks at the pattern and determines the most likely cause given all of the available data.  Trying to "prove God" always starts with asserting the root cause and then trying to match up data.  That's the exact inverse of any form of science, and is also wholly invalid from a neutral standpoint because you're not open to other alternatives.  And no matter how many quirks of existing theories anyone cites, this fact doesn't change.

[achtung]

The title of this thread is wrong.

It should be something like "Pointless Religion vs. Science Question", "Debate Practice", or "Potential Flame War"

[StratComm]

"Caution: Flame War in Progress.  Do Not Enter."

[Scottish]

Originally posted by StratComm
Trying to "prove God" always starts with asserting the root cause and then trying to match up data.  That's the exact inverse of any form of science, and is also wholly invalid from a neutral standpoint because you're not open to other alternatives.  And no matter how many quirks of existing theories anyone cites, this fact doesn't change.

But 'we' are right, so why would 'we' even want to change?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Swantz
The title of this thread is wrong.

It should be something like "Pointless Religion vs. Science Question", "Debate Practice", or "Potential Flame War"

Who says the big, fun questions have to have a point to them? Why are people so utilitarian all the time?

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Scottish
But 'we' are right, so why would 'we' even want to change?

Which is why God does not lie within the scientific realm.  Period.  Science is BY DEFINITION always open to change.

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Who says the big, fun questions have to have a point to them? Why are people so utilitarian all the time?

I think the error really lies in "A quick [...] question"

[Janos]

Originally posted by Scottish


All of which can be explained by simple probability. If you accelerate ****, it undergoes stresses. These stresses could very easily 'quirk' the [presumably] caesium clocks used.

you could make up a pretty nice "How **** Accelerates" theory because all that constinency must lie within the **** itself right?

[Scottish]

Don't get snippy, boy.