Yo yothsothgoth. I've got a question for you and for anyone else who's once
pondered the same question (probably not alot of you... many of you have better
things to think about... I've probably too much time on my hands. LOL!)... All
humans have 46 chromosomes correct? If we do, does that mean we have the same
number of genes? I recall Persocom01 posting a link to a website which claimed
there were no genetic mechanisms for engendering (if that's a word... I think it
is) new genetic information and that puzzled me. If this was true then evolution
wouldn't work. Are there ways in which humans mutate new genetic information
overtime? As of now, I think that although all humans have 46 chromosomes, our
DNA strands don't have the EXACT same number of genes since base pairs make up
the genes in our DNA and there are 'billions' of those in our DNA strands. I
don't know if this is true but since we have 'billions' of base pairs and our
genes undergo mutations during meiosis (I think) then surely, overtime, the
number should change. I've even heard that twins don't have the EXACT same DNA.
Am I wrong?
Quote by DarkRoseofHellOh hey,
kingray100 is finally muted, >.>
Wait... So he can't
post on the forums anymore? I don't know... I'm going to miss debating him.
Without him, very little would be going on.
No worries, Shinsen89. I myself often find myself too busy with schoolwork to
spend time here. It's nice to see that you're so involved in politics; I'm glad
some people actually care.
I must apologize to everyone again fpr being so sporatic. I'm stuck in home town
politics, and may be going down to South Carolina to help the Much embattled
John Edwards Camp.
He's the on;y canidate who has the experience and who has not taken one cent
from a Corporation, unlike Obama and Clinton.
When I originally saw the posts, I laughed so hard. It was
totally me, wether any of it was actually directed at me or not... it sure got
my attention. ^^ Don't worry about offending me, you're just fine. ^^ I actually
love discussions like this. Anything to
make me think, especially when it comes to examining myself and my beliefs. I
really like to reexamine my beliefs and reaffirm my faith in my religion and my
scientific reasoning and knowledge. I love science and any kind of knowledge,
especially when it comes to discussing evolution, God, man, laws, and life.
"I will never be too old to learn a new trick. I might be too lazy, but
certainly not too old."
Quote by yothsothgothIn reference to
me, eh?
You might be, or not... though I will say I fall into the
category...
Hehe, well, certainly, I did know that you are
somewhat religious and that you are a (probably the only) trained scientist is
this group. I mean no offense..>_> It wasn't really directed at you; I am
also referencing the common response to religious people that it is okay to
believe evolution even though they have their contradictory religious
doctrine.
Quote by yothsothgothAlso, I believe
everyone's hypocritical... not just me.
I don't deny that I
am =P. For example, I do believe in wavefunction collapse, even though it isn't
a fully understood phenomenon (granted, I'm somewhat forced to..).
Quote by yothsothgothYes, being a
scientist and having religious beliefs can be incompatible at times. it makes
you examine your beliefs constantly. I will say that I'm an over critical person
and question my questions and reasonings all the time in general, not only my
religious beliefs - so that might be why science and religion both work for me.
^^ Sometimes I look at science or evolution and just can't help but think,
"How could any of this (life on earth) be a random fluke? How could the Big
Bang have happened without something before that happening?" Pehaps its
just unfathomable to me right now to think further than a higher power. I do
believe that the stars were here long before myself, that dinosaurs existed, and
animals have evolved. However, I still feel comfortable in the knowledge that I
still believe in my religion even with my scientific training. I think it
actually helps me explore my scientific background and knowledge when I think
about my religious beliefs scientifically. I will say that faith is faith and
leave that at that.
If you find it useful to have both
perspectives, I don't blame you. However, I stand by my point that, at their
deepest level, their premises are logically inconsistent. After all, you did say
that keeping both perspectives "makes you examine your beliefs
constantly".
Quote by yothsothgothI think science
is compatible when one tries to prove religion with
science.
Well, what you're talking about here is finding
proof for certain events documented in religious texts. Of course, there is
nothing wrong with that and it can be good, peer-reviewed science. But this
isn't the compatibility issue I was referring to.
Quote by yothsothgothScientifically
proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I
have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I
enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know
that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what
they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events -
mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the
constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this
and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun
not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are
together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of
time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the
Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it), Sodom and
Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and brimstone" (History
Channel did one of their investigations and if you know anything about the rocks
and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur content there is
amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood of epic
proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic bottleneck where
only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my genetics class, have
seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive evidence is
interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble more than I
already have.
This stuff is actually pretty interesting. Not too long ago,
I didn't much care for religion-motivated archaeology, and to some extent I
still don't. But I just took a class whose professor is a Biblical scholar.
There I learned to appreciate stuff like this. It's no secret that I hated
reading the Bible, but somehow studying it externally isn't that bad. Also, I
don't think my prof was a Christian...which I think is a very valuable
perspective to a field that could easily be quite biased.
Quote by yothsothgothI think science
is compatible when one tries to prove religion with science. Scientifically
proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I
have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I
enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know
that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what
they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events -
mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the
constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this
and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun
not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are
together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of
time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the
Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it), Sodom and
Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and brimstone" (History
Channel did one of their investigations and if you know anything about the rocks
and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur content there is
amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood of epic
proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic bottleneck where
only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my genetics class, have
seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive evidence is
interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble more than I
already have.
I would not doubt certain historical events in the bible.
I'm plenty sure the bible has some truth to it but it's the more superstitious
parts that I personally question. When I was Christian, when someone asked me of
Jesus, I would think "son of God" but the concept of his virgin birth,
his walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, etc. would not come to
mind... I was a very secularized Christian. I was basically a Muslim without
Mohammed... Such extreme biblical tales would require extreme evidence.
Quote: In reference to your
afterlife example, I would say my scientific reasoning says there's nothing
proven. Science does know that your brain does considerable activies after
"death". When people have died, they've had experiences of light,
rememberances of tunnels, loved ones, etc. To this, scientifically you could say
that it was neurons firing impulses to the brain or vice versa - giving the
sensation of light or memories of people or past dreams. My religious beliefs
say that it is the actual thing, since I believe in the soul (which many
scientists do believe in a "soul", "qi", or a "life
force" of considerable energy, and many relate it to self awareness or
conscienceness itself). There are also many books and articles written about
this subject. Ex. In the The
Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick (DNA molecular structure
discoverer), he explains about consciousness and how it leads people to believe
in the soul. He hypothisizes that our "love, hate, beliefs, memories, and
even "free will" " are all from their genes and from their
nervous system chemicals and firings. Nothing more. Also, Dr. Duncan
MacDougall's experiments on the reason for weight loss after immediate death
(though his experiments haven't been redone so it is still speculation for many
reasons. There are even scientists who take pictures of the soul. These are not
the best examples, they are just examples.) Yes, science cannot yet prove the
afterlife or the existance of a soul. Religion cannot prove it either if you
rely on science to prove it in the first place. I will remind you that there are
many scientific researchers trying to prove and disprove the afterlife and the
soul too... its not just religious people pressing it down everyone's throats. I
will also say that yes, religious people do take what they cannot prove on
faith... and faith and facts are powerful things. Sometimes they are the same,
sometimes not. Its up to the individual to differenciate between what is and
what isn't true. Truth is still one of those things that are "in the eye of
the beholder."
There are people out there trying to
prove/disprove the afterlife?... Good luck... That's all I have to say because I
cannot begin to think of a way of doing either of these things...
Quote by alexjohnc3BobaFe(...) I
disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care.
Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be
scientists or have some ideas that are scientific.
This is
true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are
religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can
largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is
here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious
scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some
degree.
In reference to me, eh? You might
be, or not... though I will say I fall into the category...
Well, in some sort of rebuttal... I suppose I'd have to say religion is what you
make of it. Science is too. Fact and theories, reasoning and faith... all are in
the person who believes or disbelieves either of it. I can believe in different
interpretations of my religious doctrine as well as my scientific evidence.
People falsify scientific evidence as well as religious doctrine, and everything
is up for interpretation until proven otherwise. Also, I believe everyone's
hypocritical... not just me.
Yes, being a scientist and having religious beliefs can be incompatible at
times. it makes you examine your beliefs constantly. I will say that I'm an over
critical person and question my questions and reasonings all the time in
general, not only my religious beliefs - so that might be why science and
religion both work for me. ^^ Sometimes I look at science or evolution and just
can't help but think, "How could any of this (life on earth) be a random
fluke? How could the Big Bang have happened without something before that
happening?" Pehaps its just unfathomable to me right now to think further
than a higher power. I do believe that the stars were here long before myself,
that dinosaurs existed, and animals have evolved. However, I still feel
comfortable in the knowledge that I still believe in my religion even with my
scientific training. I think it actually helps me explore my scientific
background and knowledge when I think about my religious beliefs scientifically.
I will say that faith is faith and leave that at that.
Quote by ProgramZEROScience and
religion are not compatible when one tries to 'prove' religion with science. I
also believe that a scientist can be religious when answering questions science
cannot.
I think science is compatible when one tries to prove religion with science.
Scientifically proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms
my faith. I have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian)
claims and I enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her
own). I know that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program
to see what they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series
of events - mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde
orbit in the constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer
on Leo... this and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet
rose with the sun not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few
years later are together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for
a period of time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major
happenings... since the Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and
planets did I've done research and seen papers on
it), Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and
brimstone" (History Channel did one of their investigations and if you know
anything about the rocks and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur
content there is amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood
of epic proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic
bottleneck where only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my
genetics class, have seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive
evidence is interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble
more than I already have.
Quote: For example, science cannot
answer the question of an 'afterlife' and therefore a scientist can subscribe to
whatever idea of an 'afterlife' he/she feels he/she wants. Science cannot answer
that which cannot be experimented with and therefore does not concern itself
with such a question. Such a question is better suited for superstition which
does not require proof or evidence. I assume the neutral position and say that
there is no afterlife.
In reference to your afterlife example, I would say my scientific reasoning says
there's nothing proven. Science does know that your brain does considerable
activies after "death". When people have died, they've had experiences
of light, rememberances of tunnels, loved ones, etc. To this, scientifically you
could say that it was neurons firing impulses to the brain or vice versa -
giving the sensation of light or memories of people or past dreams. My religious
beliefs say that it is the actual thing, since I believe in the soul (which many
scientists do believe in a "soul", "qi", or a "life
force" of considerable energy, and many relate it to self awareness or
conscienceness itself). There are also many books and articles written about
this subject. Ex. In the The
Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick (DNA molecular structure
discoverer), he explains about consciousness and how it leads people to believe
in the soul. He hypothisizes that our "love, hate, beliefs, memories, and
even "free will" " are all from their genes and from their
nervous system chemicals and firings. Nothing more. Also, Dr. Duncan
MacDougall's experiments on the reason for weight loss after immediate death
(though his experiments haven't been redone so it is still speculation for many
reasons. There are even scientists who take pictures of the soul. These are not
the best examples, they are just examples.)
Yes, science cannot yet prove the afterlife or the existance of a soul. Religion
cannot prove it either if you rely on science to prove it in the first place. I
will remind you that there are many scientific researchers trying to prove and
disprove the afterlife and the soul too... its not just religious people
pressing it down everyone's throats. I will also say that yes, religious people
do take what they cannot prove on faith... and faith and facts are powerful
things. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. Its up to the individual to
differenciate between what is and what isn't true. Truth is still one of those
things that are "in the eye of the beholder."
Quote by ProgramZEROI assume the
neutral position and say that there is no afterlife.
Or rather there's little reason to believe there's an afterlife and much more
reason to believe that the concept of an afterlife is something humans invented
thousands of years ago to cope with death or at least explain what happens to
"you" after you die.
I agree to some extent with BobaFett2ha. Science and religion are not compatible
when one tries to 'prove' religion with science. I also believe that a scientist
can be religious when answering questions science cannot. For example, science
cannot answer the question of an 'afterlife' and therefore a scientist can
subscribe to whatever idea of an 'afterlife' he/she feels he/she wants. Science
cannot answer that which cannot be experimented with and therefore does not
concern itself with such a question. Such a question is better suited for
superstition which does not require proof or evidence. I assume the neutral
position and say that there is no afterlife.
Quote: Well, many people like to
say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be
religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree
because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.
Going the Sam Harris route? Hmm i struggle to decide whether they are fully
incompatible, all I am quite sure of is that if Atheists become to dogmatic or
ideological then were not much better then a religion.
If you mean by a scientist that are religious (it depends on what religion,
cause Buddhism won't really work) then yes, there are some contradictions
(assuming if they believe 'everything'). But seeing that a lot of people
actually dismiss some things of their religion regardless and say its not there
or something like that (other than that itself is sort of stupid) they sort of
aren't that hypocritic. Then it depends on how you want to look at it. If you
let your belief influence your studies, then that sort of destroys the point of
even being a scientist.
Quote by alexjohnc3BobaFett2ha, I
disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care.
Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be
scientists or have some ideas that are scientific.
This is
true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are
religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can
largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is
here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious
scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some degree.
BobaFett2ha, I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just
don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious
people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific. Where religion
and science conflict is that religions make assumptions and that everyone is
just supposed to believe no matter how crazy or baseless they are. With
scientific ideas, however, people propose an idea and then vigorously try to
test its validity and disprove it. If you apply that to religious ideas, you
completely destroy them because they're only substantiated by coincidence,
wishful thinking, and subjective experience.
Sort of related: you all might want to check out The Enemies of Reason. I saw it a while ago, and it's excellent.
You can find links to it on the Wikipedia page for it on Google Video. It's 2:00
A.M. (not when I originally wrote this) and I've been doing school-related work
all day, so I don't feel like posting the links myself. Find them if you want.
:P
Quote by ProgramZEROWell, for one,
I'd like to know what people mean by 'science and religion being
compatible/incompatible'. Their both completely different things that serve a
similar purpose in different ways.
Well, many people like to
say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be
religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree
because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.
In response to your other question, if you read the article, it is originally a
response to an article by the popular pseudo-doctor Deepak Chopra. There was
also a good critique of it on Pharyngula, so I'm sure Alex has seen it.
Didn't
read it all but... It's the God of the Gaps scenario, right?
Quote: Food for thought for those
of you who like to say science and religion are compatible. I never agreed with
that, but I'm not very vocal about it because it's a common "defense"
of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and say it: science and religion are not compatible.
Well,
for one, I'd like to know what people mean by 'science and religion being
compatible/incompatible'. Their both completely different things that serve a
similar purpose in different ways. Some people choose one and ditch the other
and others try to fuse the two. I'm one of the former. I've chosen science and
ditched religion. Give me evidence or give me liberty!
Quote: Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra
fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I especially hate how he invokes
ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He doesn't understand QM, and none of
his readers do either.
I am still thinking it is too young to say science and beliefs are
incompatible.
after all...
the irony is... beliefs generated science.
(namely, the big bang theory etc)
Food for thought for those of you who like to say science and religion are
compatible. I never agreed with that, but I'm not very vocal about it because
it's a common "defense" of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and
say it: science and religion are not
compatible.
Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I
especially hate how he invokes ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He
doesn't understand QM, and none of his readers do either.
Quote by Devildudewow.... the group has
ACDC's Highway to Hell on the music list.
are we Satanic worshippers now?
LOve that song by the way, epic rock was old age, the good old days of proper
rock music before the emotional angsty rise of new age emo rockers.
screw those.
No, we aren't Satan worshippers... Well, at
least I'm not... Yes, that song is good... LOL! It's AC/DC's Stairway to Heaven.
wow.... the group has ACDC's Highway to Hell on the music list.
are we Satanic worshippers now?
LOve that song by the way, epic rock was old age, the good old days of proper
rock music before the emotional angsty rise of new age emo rockers.
screw those.
Yo yothsothgoth. I've got a question for you and for anyone else who's once pondered the same question (probably not alot of you... many of you have better things to think about... I've probably too much time on my hands. LOL!)... All humans have 46 chromosomes correct? If we do, does that mean we have the same number of genes? I recall Persocom01 posting a link to a website which claimed there were no genetic mechanisms for engendering (if that's a word... I think it is) new genetic information and that puzzled me. If this was true then evolution wouldn't work. Are there ways in which humans mutate new genetic information overtime? As of now, I think that although all humans have 46 chromosomes, our DNA strands don't have the EXACT same number of genes since base pairs make up the genes in our DNA and there are 'billions' of those in our DNA strands. I don't know if this is true but since we have 'billions' of base pairs and our genes undergo mutations during meiosis (I think) then surely, overtime, the number should change. I've even heard that twins don't have the EXACT same DNA. Am I wrong?
Wait... So he can't post on the forums anymore? I don't know... I'm going to miss debating him. Without him, very little would be going on.
Hmm... Time for...
All I can say is, its about time.
Yeah..., I just finished my Finals, WHOOOOO
merged: 01-29-2008 ~ 10:23am
Oh hey, kingray100 is finally muted, >.>
No worries, Shinsen89. I myself often find myself too busy with schoolwork to spend time here. It's nice to see that you're so involved in politics; I'm glad some people actually care.
I must apologize to everyone again fpr being so sporatic. I'm stuck in home town politics, and may be going down to South Carolina to help the Much embattled John Edwards Camp.
He's the on;y canidate who has the experience and who has not taken one cent from a Corporation, unlike Obama and Clinton.
When I originally saw the posts, I laughed so hard.
It was
totally me, wether any of it was actually directed at me or not... it sure got
my attention. ^^ Don't worry about offending me, you're just fine. ^^ I actually
love discussions like this. Anything to
make me think, especially when it comes to examining myself and my beliefs. I
really like to reexamine my beliefs and reaffirm my faith in my religion and my
scientific reasoning and knowledge. I love science and any kind of knowledge,
especially when it comes to discussing evolution, God, man, laws, and life.
"I will never be too old to learn a new trick. I might be too lazy, but certainly not too old."
Hehe, well, certainly, I did know that you are somewhat religious and that you are a (probably the only) trained scientist is this group. I mean no offense..>_> It wasn't really directed at you; I am also referencing the common response to religious people that it is okay to believe evolution even though they have their contradictory religious doctrine.
I don't deny that I am =P. For example, I do believe in wavefunction collapse, even though it isn't a fully understood phenomenon (granted, I'm somewhat forced to..).
If you find it useful to have both perspectives, I don't blame you. However, I stand by my point that, at their deepest level, their premises are logically inconsistent. After all, you did say that keeping both perspectives "makes you examine your beliefs constantly".
Well, what you're talking about here is finding proof for certain events documented in religious texts. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that and it can be good, peer-reviewed science. But this isn't the compatibility issue I was referring to.
This stuff is actually pretty interesting. Not too long ago, I didn't much care for religion-motivated archaeology, and to some extent I still don't. But I just took a class whose professor is a Biblical scholar. There I learned to appreciate stuff like this. It's no secret that I hated reading the Bible, but somehow studying it externally isn't that bad. Also, I don't think my prof was a Christian...which I think is a very valuable perspective to a field that could easily be quite biased.
I would not doubt certain historical events in the bible. I'm plenty sure the bible has some truth to it but it's the more superstitious parts that I personally question. When I was Christian, when someone asked me of Jesus, I would think "son of God" but the concept of his virgin birth, his walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, etc. would not come to mind... I was a very secularized Christian. I was basically a Muslim without Mohammed... Such extreme biblical tales would require extreme evidence.
There are people out there trying to prove/disprove the afterlife?... Good luck... That's all I have to say because I cannot begin to think of a way of doing either of these things...
In reference to me, eh?
You might
be, or not... though I will say I fall into the category...
Well, in some sort of rebuttal... I suppose I'd have to say religion is what you make of it. Science is too. Fact and theories, reasoning and faith... all are in the person who believes or disbelieves either of it. I can believe in different interpretations of my religious doctrine as well as my scientific evidence. People falsify scientific evidence as well as religious doctrine, and everything is up for interpretation until proven otherwise. Also, I believe everyone's hypocritical... not just me.
Yes, being a scientist and having religious beliefs can be incompatible at times. it makes you examine your beliefs constantly. I will say that I'm an over critical person and question my questions and reasonings all the time in general, not only my religious beliefs - so that might be why science and religion both work for me. ^^ Sometimes I look at science or evolution and just can't help but think, "How could any of this (life on earth) be a random fluke? How could the Big Bang have happened without something before that happening?" Pehaps its just unfathomable to me right now to think further than a higher power. I do believe that the stars were here long before myself, that dinosaurs existed, and animals have evolved. However, I still feel comfortable in the knowledge that I still believe in my religion even with my scientific training. I think it actually helps me explore my scientific background and knowledge when I think about my religious beliefs scientifically. I will say that faith is faith and leave that at that.
I think science is compatible when one tries to prove religion with science. Scientifically proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events - mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it
), Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and
brimstone" (History Channel did one of their investigations and if you know
anything about the rocks and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur
content there is amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood
of epic proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic
bottleneck where only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my
genetics class, have seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive
evidence is interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble
more than I already have. 
In reference to your afterlife example, I would say my scientific reasoning says there's nothing proven. Science does know that your brain does considerable activies after "death". When people have died, they've had experiences of light, rememberances of tunnels, loved ones, etc. To this, scientifically you could say that it was neurons firing impulses to the brain or vice versa - giving the sensation of light or memories of people or past dreams. My religious beliefs say that it is the actual thing, since I believe in the soul (which many scientists do believe in a "soul", "qi", or a "life force" of considerable energy, and many relate it to self awareness or conscienceness itself). There are also many books and articles written about this subject. Ex. In the The Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick (DNA molecular structure discoverer), he explains about consciousness and how it leads people to believe in the soul. He hypothisizes that our "love, hate, beliefs, memories, and even "free will" " are all from their genes and from their nervous system chemicals and firings. Nothing more. Also, Dr. Duncan MacDougall's experiments on the reason for weight loss after immediate death (though his experiments haven't been redone so it is still speculation for many reasons. There are even scientists who take pictures of the soul. These are not the best examples, they are just examples.)
Yes, science cannot yet prove the afterlife or the existance of a soul. Religion cannot prove it either if you rely on science to prove it in the first place. I will remind you that there are many scientific researchers trying to prove and disprove the afterlife and the soul too... its not just religious people pressing it down everyone's throats. I will also say that yes, religious people do take what they cannot prove on faith... and faith and facts are powerful things. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. Its up to the individual to differenciate between what is and what isn't true. Truth is still one of those things that are "in the eye of the beholder."
Or rather there's little reason to believe there's an afterlife and much more reason to believe that the concept of an afterlife is something humans invented thousands of years ago to cope with death or at least explain what happens to "you" after you die.
I agree to some extent with BobaFett2ha. Science and religion are not compatible when one tries to 'prove' religion with science. I also believe that a scientist can be religious when answering questions science cannot. For example, science cannot answer the question of an 'afterlife' and therefore a scientist can subscribe to whatever idea of an 'afterlife' he/she feels he/she wants. Science cannot answer that which cannot be experimented with and therefore does not concern itself with such a question. Such a question is better suited for superstition which does not require proof or evidence. I assume the neutral position and say that there is no afterlife.
Going the Sam Harris route? Hmm i struggle to decide whether they are fully incompatible, all I am quite sure of is that if Atheists become to dogmatic or ideological then were not much better then a religion.
If you mean by a scientist that are religious (it depends on what religion, cause Buddhism won't really work) then yes, there are some contradictions (assuming if they believe 'everything'). But seeing that a lot of people actually dismiss some things of their religion regardless and say its not there or something like that (other than that itself is sort of stupid) they sort of aren't that hypocritic. Then it depends on how you want to look at it. If you let your belief influence your studies, then that sort of destroys the point of even being a scientist.
This is true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some degree.
BobaFett2ha, I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific. Where religion and science conflict is that religions make assumptions and that everyone is just supposed to believe no matter how crazy or baseless they are. With scientific ideas, however, people propose an idea and then vigorously try to test its validity and disprove it. If you apply that to religious ideas, you completely destroy them because they're only substantiated by coincidence, wishful thinking, and subjective experience.
Sort of related: you all might want to check out The Enemies of Reason. I saw it a while ago, and it's excellent. You can find links to it on the Wikipedia page for it on Google Video. It's 2:00 A.M. (not when I originally wrote this) and I've been doing school-related work all day, so I don't feel like posting the links myself. Find them if you want. :P
Well, many people like to say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.
In response to your other question, if you read the article, it is originally a response to an article by the popular pseudo-doctor Deepak Chopra. There was also a good critique of it on Pharyngula, so I'm sure Alex has seen it.
Didn't read it all but... It's the God of the Gaps scenario, right?
Well, for one, I'd like to know what people mean by 'science and religion being compatible/incompatible'. Their both completely different things that serve a similar purpose in different ways. Some people choose one and ditch the other and others try to fuse the two. I'm one of the former. I've chosen science and ditched religion. Give me evidence or give me liberty!
...Who?
I am still thinking it is too young to say science and beliefs are incompatible.
after all...
the irony is... beliefs generated science.
(namely, the big bang theory etc)
LeMaitre etc.
Hey guys, it's me again. Just read an interesting article today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/skyhooks-and-cranes-deep_b_6179.html
Food for thought for those of you who like to say science and religion are compatible. I never agreed with that, but I'm not very vocal about it because it's a common "defense" of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and say it: science and religion are not compatible.
Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I especially hate how he invokes ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He doesn't understand QM, and none of his readers do either.
And kingray is getting more and more annoying -.-, and stupid...
....
No, we aren't Satan worshippers... Well, at least I'm not... Yes, that song is good... LOL! It's AC/DC's Stairway to Heaven.
wow.... the group has ACDC's Highway to Hell on the music list.
are we Satanic worshippers now?
LOve that song by the way, epic rock was old age, the good old days of proper rock music before the emotional angsty rise of new age emo rockers.
screw those.
Thats an odd way to talk about it, but... yeah.