Slashdot Mirror
Study Provides Compelling Evidence of Single Impact Extinction Theory
ectotherm writes to tell us that a new study at the University of Missouri-Columbia claims to provide compelling evidence that a single meteor impact was the cause of animal extinction 65 million years ago. From the article: "MacLeod and his co-investigators studied sediment recovered from the Demerara Rise in the Atlantic Ocean northeast of South America, about 4,500 km (approximately 2,800 miles) from the impact site on the Yucatan Peninsula. Sites closer to and farther from the impact site have been studied, but few intermediary sites such as this have been explored."
I suspect Wombats were somehow involved.
65 million years is crazy-talk, that's 64,994,000 years before God made the Earth!
Trolling is a art,
Since this helps to support a widely-held theory of the mass extinction 65 million years ago, why is this really news?
Help me out here.
Didn't they just fill in another data point?
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Dinosaurs were not killed off in a mass extinction 65 million years ago... many of them survived and are currently employed by the *AA and associated groups.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I was *not* a meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs, it was global warming. Let's examine the facts here, with nearly everybody driving around Bedrock in their souped up SUVs, you can imagine all the CO2 those things put out, not to mention the contributing factor of mass extinctions due to consumption of racks of ribs at drive-ins.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
... that said "Big Bang Theory: God spoke and BANG it happened."
Look at the film. You can see another meteor on the grassy knoll.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
If you want to laugh read through the comments. Laugh or be concerned, that is.
"Look at the film. You can see another meteor on the grassy knoll."
1963 called. It wants its nutty conspiracy theory back. Fortunately, there are plenty of cranks peddling tales of explosives in WTC buildings to give you plenty of new material.
Where were you when the voynix came?
But the Creation Museum says the Earth is only 6,000 years old! :-D
Hell, he's probably witnessed it himself.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
65 million years ago...
Dino 1: Wii is the best dino console.
Dino 2: No. The Wii graphics suck. Xbox 360 is awesome.
Dino 3: Wii and Xbox 360 both suck. Playstation 3 with Cell processor rules. Plus we have BluRay.
Dino 1: PS3 is too expensive and there aren't enough blue diodes. All dinosaurs can afford Wii though. It great!
Dino 2: Meh, PS3 is expensive and Wii doesn't do hidef. Xbox 360 sits right in the middle and saves the day. Go 360, go!
God: Ok, that does it. No more dinosaurs.
According to the creationists, the dinosaurs were killed off when God flooded the earth. What compelled Noah not to include a pair of every dinosaurs on the arc however, is beyond me...
I once dated a smoking-hot (female) engineering student. I was totally psyched, because I thought an engineering student would make a much better date the the vapid and witless masses in the communication and humanities majors*.
Well, I learned that knowing calculus and physics doesn't always make you smart. After a few too many drinks one night, she opened up to me. She told me about the "proven scientific evidence" that recently demonstrated that the dinosaurs went extinct in "Noah's flood." I was dumbfounded and had no idea how to respond.
That was the last time I asked her out. Oh well. She was so hot! But even I have standards.
* Don't kill me. Not all of you are dumb. Just the vast majority (including all those I dated).
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Let's assume the flood story is true. God wipes out practically the entire human and animal population by drowning them. And this is your loving God who you want to spent eternity with? Really???
[Linux/Firefox version. On mostly green blob...]
Rollover to expand video
REPLAY VIDEO
The Librarian
Return to King Solomon's Mines
Sunday, December 3 8/7C TNT
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
They want you to learn some humor.
Shots, I would think that after 5 years of your supporting a joker, a crack-pot, and an idiot (you figure out which one is which), that you would learned to acquire some humor.
Global cooling killed the dinosaurs, wikipedia says so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_(TV_series)
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
The problem with all these sedimentological studies is that the statistical period between large meteorite impacts and the systematic error in the dating of the sediments (using isotopic geochemistry) in addition to the ambiguity in the fossil record (and the dating errors in those sediments) means that it's guaranteed that you will find a correlation between any mass extinction and a large meteorite impact event.
Around the K-T boundery there is not only the Chixalub impact but a large one in Germany and a couple of others which have been discovered, all within the dating error. Add to this that there's also the Decan Traps flood basalts being errupted, ocean currents changing as the north atlantic starts to open and the amount of flooded continental shelf decreasing hugely and you have several possible smoking guns.
The evidence just isn't there currently to say why most of the dinosaur lineages died out (along with many sea reptiles and other oceanic creatures). In fact there is still a doubt as to when it actually happened and over how long a period. Ammonites, it seems, saw the meteorite coming.. about a million years before it hit.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
It's funny. Within that field there's an interesting dichotomy. When I was an engineering undergrad it seemed that the percentages of atheists and over-the-top thumpers were higher than in the geneneral population (of college types).
Now, I can understand the atheist part. But, I had to think about the other group. My guess is that engineers become accustomed to a 0/1 world in school that has very little uncertainty, and they eventually start thinking that way in other areas of life. Only the Bib1e can help with that.
There's another interesting angle. Engineers at my school tended to be, in the aggregate, at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. Many first-generation students from rural areas... so, you can imagine they'd more often be really religious.
If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.
People should be asking how it is possible that dinosaur birds of the past could have been as large as 747's. We don't have birds today on the entire planet that are larger than about 50 lbs. And this clearly pushes the limits of what's possible with bird mass because these 50-lb birds practically kill themselves when they land. The Mongolians have tried to breed bigger falcons for thousands of years with no luck. So, how is it possible that birds were once as big as 747's?
People should be asking exactly *which* animals survived, and why?
People should be asking if the land-walking dinosaurs were alive today, would they survive? Check out http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropod s/biganims.html.
Ask those questions *WITH* the questions about the impact, and suddenly the bigger picture changes. Is the Big Bang Theory still just a theory, or are there alternative cosmologies that people will consider? What about the electrical force? In a theory of everything based upon electricity, gravity would be a function of electrical charge accumulation and the Theory of Relativity could be very easily explained using aether concepts that contrary to popular belief, have never actually been disproven. The aether explanation for Relativity is actually much simpler to understand than Relativity.
Do planets accumulate and transfer charge? According to astrophysicists and NASA, the answer is a vehement "NO!". But have you ever actually looked at the Aristarchus crater on the Moon? That "debris field" has *negative depth*. They are trenches! That looks a hell of a lot more like a lightning strike to me than a debris field: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309hubble.jpg. Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that the Aristarchus and Tycho craters occur on naturally high spots on the Moon's surface?
We know that metals can accumulate charge and we know that the Earth has a hell of a lot of metals. So, why can't the Earth accumulate and transfer charge with nearby planets or bodies? Because we've never seen it happen? But we can see large-scale electrical activity all over the universe with our telescopes. We've gathered enough data by now on comets to suspect that the tail and coma of a comet are in fact lightning bolts. Check it out: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . If we're seeing large magnetic fields and temperatures of 100 million Kelvin inside of nebulae, then that means that nebulae are almost certainly *not* forming by gravitational collapse and that electricity is the dominant force in creating stars. If we're seeing large-scale electrical forces elsewhere in the universe, why should our solar system be so special as to not have these?
Why are all craters round? Sure, astrophysicists will tell you that it's because an object going fast enough will create an explosion upon impact, but then why is the sedimentary layer at the bottom of Meteor Crater undisturbed? Would a comparable nuclear explosion leave no trace of itself in the ground beneath it?
How To Kill A Planet of Dinosaurs:
What motivated Einstein to say that space is modified by gravity? Imagine that a planet is orbiting around the sun. Then imagine that suddenly the Sun disappears, and the source of gravitational attraction is gone. What happens to the planet? Does it instantly go off the orbit? Or does the disappearance of gravity require some time to reach the orbiting planet's position? Einstein's answer is that it stays in the orbit for a time R/c before going off. It is as though gravitation continues to operate on the planet at its location even though the Sun is gone. Something wa
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. You believe that?
'Uh huh.'
Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God might be fuckin' with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their heads?
God's running around, burying fossils: 'Hu hu ho. We'll see who believes in me now, ha HA. I'm a prankster god. I am killing me. Ho ho ho ho.'
You know, you die, you go to St. Peter, 'Did you you believe in dinosaurs?'
Well, you know, there was fossils everywhere. [Bill makes sound effects with his mic] KOOM Aaaahhhh. 'What are you, an idiot? God was FUCKING with you! Giant flying lizards, you moron! That's one of God's easiest jokes!'
'It seemed so plausibleeeee! Ahhhhhhhh!' Bound for the lake of fire. . . . "
We miss you Bill . . . please tell the flying saucers to drop you off for another show.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
40 responses and not a single noodly appendage in sight. Is everyone OK?
An analogy would be a computer simulation. You have a gigantic computer simulating a universe. You don't want to run the simulation from the big bang, so you load a precomputed state which includes 14 billion years already simulated. Now, this is important to know for discussions of the reality in which the giant computer exists. But it is meaningless for any discussion or investigation of the simulation rules for the universe being simulated.
BTW, your simulation has a "cheat" function called "miracle" used for, ah, errr, "debugging". The AI units in your simulation can't reliably tell which events are miracles, and which are normal operation of the simulation. This is because they cannot know the full state of the simulation, and likely won't even know the full rule set - due to being part of the simulation themselves.
I want to know whether the meteor appeared from Earth to come from the direction of the Pleiades constellation that the Mayans would later prioritize in their studies with the world's most sophisticated pre-industrial astromomy.
It's already an interesting coincidence that the people whose empire was built on the site of the most influential astronomical event in "recent" Earth history would have such sophisticated astronomy. I wonder what they discovered about the part of the sky from which the meteor seemed (to the dinosaurs) to appear. The Mayan name for the Pleiades is "Tz'ab", "the rattlesnake's tail", which is pretty resonant with a meteorite that killed the lizards ruling the world.
I also wonder if our current complex space sciences can reconstruct the path of the meteor from its origin, by studying the trajectories of the remaining solar system objects, and projecting back 65My to a slightly larger population. A lot has happened, but astronomers' deductions have made much of very little for quite some time.
--
make install -not war
She just was extra careful not to die between Saturday night and Sunday morning....
Step right up folks! It's another edition of Captain Splendid's "Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning!"
Today's contestant is Krell. So, Krell, tell us, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Enquiring minds want to know!
Seriously, cheer up you grumpy fucker, and thanks for playing!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I believe this article on Radiocarbon Dating may help you understand this process better. You will also see that scientists do take variables into account to better calibrate their results.
evolution, or any scientific advance, doesn't disprove the existence of god
the raving fundamentalists and the raving atheists really need to reconsider that point
the tension between science and religion is contrived, false
the tension between science and religion exists only in the minds of demagogues, brain-dead partisans, from either the community of faith, or the community of atheists
they both got it wrong
nothing science does disproves religion. nothing religion does disproves science. they are two disciplines examining the nature of existence from completely unrelated approaches: the fact-based here and now, and the transcendent impressionistic meta-view
and never shall the two disciplines meet
that's the truth of the matter
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The problem is with the education system. I don't see what the big deal is, but then again I went to private Catholic elementary, middle, and high schools, where we learned about science in classes called Science and religion in classes called Religion.
Seems pretty logical to me. The catholics that actually teach it taught that the bible should be taken as a collection of stories that can assist you in making moral decisions. Not necessarily fact, for fact we have science class. We were taught about evolution, darwinism, and the big bang and it wasn't presented as a theory either, but fact.
Interestingly enough, at one point or another we went into great detail about pretty much every major religion and belief system. Would it really hurt to learn about religion as a whole as long as it isn't taught in a secular manner? We did, which is probably why I don't practice any religion.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Emerill "Bang! Creatures everywhere... don't worry about getting some in the lakes and rivers, only enriches things later...okay folks now stay tuned, after the commercial we'll whip up Man in less that 24 hours."
Darn right they died out from a single impact. The impact of Chuck Norris' roundhouse kick simultaneously connecting with every dinosaur's face on the planet.
This is often referred to as "Last Tuesdayism." The idea that the universe was created last Tuesday with the appearance of being 15 billion years old is logically impossible to falsify. Since it cannot be falsified, it is not science, but that doesn't stop the creationists from bringing up the idea. They never seem to understand that a corollary of it is that God is a liar.
There are also constant Usenet flamewars, religious jihads, and university campus riots between the Last Tuesdayists and the Last Mondayists. They're all heretics, of course. All right-thinking, intelligent people know that the universe was created by my cat Marvin three weeks ago Thursday.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The interest in the article is that they have found a single sediment with both the K-T boundary marked by loss of marine plankton species and debris from the impact at the same level. So they can look at date difference without needing absolute dates and without the errors possible in isotopic geochemistry.
In revelations it talks about a big "star" falling from the heavens that killed many people and a third of life on the planet.. could this be an accurate prediction of a future impact? Everytime this topic comes up I am reminded of this prophecy...
The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from the sky, burning like a torch, and it fell on one third of the rivers, and on the springs of the waters.
11 The name of the star is called "Wormwood." One third of the waters became wormwood. Many people died from the waters, because they were made bitter.
When did Ted Holden start posting to Slashdot?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
When questioned about what solidified the single-impact theory for him, MacLeod stated, "It just occurred to me, it's so simple.... THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
First: parent probably meant to use the term "Young Earth Creationists" instead of just "Creationists". The contention is that Atheists and YEC's don't know what to believe; in that regard, they are the same - they're agnostics.
The Atheist Side
No Atheist has conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist. If you do, cough it up! They seem to believe that the complex system of energy and matter, biology, stars and galaxies, etc. is. It serves no purpose; it expands and contracts, and always has, and always will. For no reason. It simply is.
All but a very (VERY) select few people are bound to Earth their entire lives. The select few (read: very, VERY few) got to go to the moon, or hang out in Earth's orbit. We have some robots on Mars. Despite looking at galaxies that are thousands of light years away, and literally *seeing* how much of the universe we know next to nothing about, Atheists are bold enough to contend that God has been disproven.
That's a bunch of garbage; humans are incapable of disproving the existence of God, and any genuine ever-the-scientist knows this damn well. Atheists talk like we've already been out there and seen it all, like we (humans) own the universe. Which, I am very happy to inform you, we don't.
Now, an Atheist could merely hold their "above everyone" intelligence perception to themselves; but instead, somehow, they feel the need to take shots at all that is "religion." They feel the need to attempt convincing everyone in the whole world that they've discovered it all, that all of "the evidence" somehow conclusively disproves God, that "religion is for retards," etc.
The YEC Side
Then there's "Young Earth Creationists." YEC's contend that God made a 15 billion year old history so as to test everyone's faith - and if you don't believe that (which they realize most people do not) that you're going to Hell. What a great belief system! Your local church is going to Heaven, and everyone else rots and burns. No wonder they don't want to let go of that... it's what secures their significance.
YEC's == Atheists
Have you ever seen someone lie, and the more their lie is challenged, the more they scream it as though it's true? Think of a guy on the show Cops who just got busted with drugs: the more compelling evidence that the cop provides that the drugs were really in the suspect's possession, the more insistent and abrasive the suspect becomes that the drugs don't belong to him.
YEC's and Atheists are both the same in this manner. So many Atheists keep fallaciously painting the picture that all Jews, Muslims and Christians believe every line in The Bible literally. They keep trying to explain peoples' experiences with The Holy Spirit with really "far out" science (usually theoretical psychology), and contend that there's not much left to discover and therefore God must not exist... while YEC's keep contending that only a thin, select few individuals actually get to go to Heaven, that their dear, loving God has created many humans, fooled them into disbelieving His existence, and then "serves them right" by condemning them to an eternity in Hell and the Lake of Fire. An eternity. For 80 years worth of sins.
I can only assume that they're both acting in the way of the liar drug addict mentioned above; they believe something that's so radical and unlikely that they HAVE to be very outspoken and insistent about their beliefs, or nobody will follow them (more importantly, they might have to admit to themselves what they don't want to - that they're believing in a complete fallacy). There can be no chance that God designed evolution - it just makes too much sense, dammit! It's a lot of fun to manipulate people into "seeing it your way" - and both religions (YEC's and Atheists) seem to get off on this.
If you get all of your religious demographics from the Internet, you'd believe that about 48% of the humans are YEC's, and about 48% are Atheists. In fact, the two co
I am curious about carbon dating. Although most biochemical processes wouldn't care less which carbon atom was used, would there not be a bias towards one isotope rather than the other. C12 has less mass, therefore would have an ever so slightly different activation energy. Could this bias distort carbon dating ages?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Religionists says there was great flood.
Scientists decry it saying that the idea of a flood is ridiculous. Because, it couldn't be anything less than a meteor.
IOW, they both agree on the fact that there was a catastrophic event, but argue religously about how it happened.
Have you read my journal today?
Wow really, a meteor wiped out the dinasours? and all this time I thought it was anthrax. 8P
It's unfortunate that some people in the world are rude. Try being an atheist and having tens of millions of people assume that you have no morals or values. I have to be careful who I "admit" my lack of faith to, lest I be insulted openly by their assumption that I must live my life as if there is no morality. Yeah, like I rape, pillage, and plunder daily. Want to join me?
Unfortunately for you, the fundamentalists have tried to co-opt the word "Christian" for themselves. If you aren't a biblical literalist, they don't consider you a Christian. The problem is, most biblical literalists repudiate rational thought and pretty much all of science. When you guys get that sorted out amongst yourselves as to who is an isn't a Christian, let us know.
Well, how much respect would you have for an adult who believed in Santa Claus or magic elves? Really? You might not pelt them with rocks, but you aren't really going to respect them, and you are fully aware of that. God is basically an invisible magic friend who loves you and who will punish people you don't like by sending them to hell forever. We can disagree on the fine points, but though I agree that you have faith and I would never openly mock you (sorry about those who do--I don't like rude people) but at a basic level what is there that I'm supposed to respect? Can I have more respect for you than you would have for someone who prayed to Dionysus or thought that a magic leprechaun orbits Neptune and sends him messages? How you can expect more respect than you would have yourself? I agree that you wouldn't be rude to them (kudos to you) but the best we can hope for here is the old saw, "if you don't have anything nice to say..."
The laws of physics would only exist in a universe that existed. Meaning, that this first law only holds true once the universe exists. And if science is correct and space and time are linked, there was no before to existence--it isn't as if the universe existed for a while but was empty, and then later stuff came into being. The laws only came into being with the existence of stuff, because the stuff has properties that, once recognized, are stated as scientific laws.
Evolution is the basis of modern biology. It isn't a hack "theory" in the laymen sense of the word. It is a mental model that happens to not only explain the facts, but to have a predictive value, and so on. Talkorigins.org has good articles on what "theory" means in a scientific sense. A large part of the problem we face in the evolution-creationism "debate" is the (often deliberate) misuse of the word "theory." Just because the biblical literalists have an explanation doesn't make it a theory in the scientific sense, so their explanation isn't a competing theory. It's a competing explanation (just as magic elves, Odin, and so on are explanations) but not a competing theory. A theory is more than a conjectural explanation.
how do I block entire threads from view??? That one comment at the beginning derailed the entire discussion... and off it went with crap about creationism...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Thanks for clearing that up! I thought he meant that they were alone, as in lonesome, no girlfriends. Which would have made sense, and would have provided some hope for an evolution-believer like me. Too bad!
I'm an atheist but even I know the answer to that one. It's called the bible. And because christians consider it to be the word of god, it pretty much trumps everything else. Rethink your post with an "and he gave us this blessed book that was his truth to us all and it said (implied) 6000 years" and add that to the crafted history and the only conclusion you can come to (assuming bible is treated as gosple - is that a pun? anyhow..) is that something is wrong with the evidence, unless of course you want to believe the bible is false, which like I said is off the table for christians. No one wants to worship a dishonest god, so there is no way anyone would behave as you suggest.
Keep fighting the good fight though.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Everyone knows that an asteroid wasn't what killed the dinosaurs. It was high insurance rates!
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
You speak as if time actually exists. It seems more that time is an illusion and relative to us conceiving what we experiance. *shrug* .. Who cares, still means I have to go to work in half an hour.
"What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
That is a pretty good summary of Christian doctrine within the simulation analogy. However, it is just an analogy with weak points. For instance, in Christian doctrine, the AI units are not strictly in the simulation. They are actually intelligent beings in the outer reality, whose primary mode of interaction is through the simulation. Intelligence is not strictly natural, and human beings exist in two realms at once. Also, "simulations" imply a certain lack of instrinsic worth - they are discardable. The creator of our universe (through His avatar) claims to have a vested interest in our reality - and his enemies seem to find our universe surprisingly important also. Some theologians think this is only because our creator's interest makes our fate a good way to "get back" at the creator.
Wombats were put here by pirates to test our faith.
Sheesh! Read between the lines people!
Spork.
P.S. Spork.
"everything you say which you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is a theory."
...")
Ummm, no, that's actually closer to a belief (or a basis for a proof). A theory is something that you CAN prove, with consistency, regardless of who is doing the proving (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point).
I totally agree with you on keeping your science out of your religion and vice versa. But that's why I believe it's important to reinforce the definition of what a theory is. The inaccuracy as you state above is what ID'ers use to teach creationism (or more accurately, resist teaching evolution) in our public education systems ("...evolution is JUST a theory, so
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
it's just a pity that He had to take out all those PS3 owners just to get the Wii gamers. *ducks*.
Oh well, it'll only take 65 million years for Sony to get another 100,000 consoles out. **ducks again**
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
damn those things - damn them!
Do you disbelieve in the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot, or the Abominable Snowman?
There is no proof for any of these -- phenomena associated with these creatures have other rational explanations that do not require these monsters to exist.
At the same time, there is no conclusive *dis*proof of their existence, thanks to their supposed range allowing them ample opportunities to hide such that only occasional eyewitnesses have claimed to have spotted them.
Refusing to believe in these monsters until there is concrete proof of their existence is amonsterism. Eyewitness accounts are insufficient evidence. People lie. This is underlined by a failure to observe the monsters despite controlled, repeatable and repeated efforts to do so.
Refusing to believe that a former Nigerian finance minister is going to send me a few milion dollars until there is concrete proof that he or she does, likewise, is perfectly reasonable. Email exchanges are insufficient evidence. People lie.
Refusing to believe in a divine being until there is concrete proof of its existence, with no other rational natural testable explanation, is atheism.
Do you assume anyone with Faith is a hypocrite?
Science and religion aren't exactly opposed to each other. It is true that science cannot prove the existence of God any more than the existance of the flying spaghetti monster, but it is also true that science cannot disprove the existence of God.
That's why it's called "Faith." For the same reasons, it's foolhardy to try to use the scientific vernacular to articulate matters of faith; if science is worthless to prove/disprove the existance of an Almighty, than it is irrational to assume there is any overlap or conflict between science and religion at all.
If for no other reason, look at Faith from the view of the pragmatist. Although any group has its asshats, the truly faithful have morals, try to be good people in any way they are called, and in my experience are happy. The "evangelical athiests" I know are angry, bitter, elitist, and destructive. Look past the individual: fascism, nazism, and communism are actually perfectly sensical and rational outside some external source of morals.
I can see various counterpoints involving the crusades to trickle up, but stay them a moment. Are kings seeking wealth and power, and a then-corrupt Roman bureacracy actually examples of Faith and religion, or of more secular, political motives?
The point: Believing in something higher than your own mortal self is not a rejection of science. Not everyone who listens to an iPod "enjoying its effect", the product of science, is rejecting Faith or religion. Science cannot disprove the existence of God; by the very definition of an Almighty, this is impossible. There is no reason outside politics of convenience (think secular liberals or witch burners) that the two cannot coexist.
I personally consider science to be God's gift to humanity, that we may better understand His creation. From this viewpoint especially is any conflict ridiculous.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Do you assume anyone with Faith is a hypocrite?
Science and religion aren't exactly opposed to each other. It is true that science cannot prove the existence of God any more than the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it is also true that science cannot disprove the existence of God.
That's why it's called "Faith." For the same reasons, it's foolhardy to try to use the scientific vernacular to articulate matters of faith; science is a wholly inadequate tool for reasoning out the existence/nonexistence of a divine being.
If for no other reason, look at Faith from the view of the pragmatist. Although any group has its asshats, the truly faithful have morals, try to be good people in any way they are called, and in my experience are happy. The "evangelical athiests" I know are angry, bitter, elitist, and destructive. Look past the individual: fascism, nazism, and communism are actually perfectly sensical and rational outside some external source of morals.
I can see various counterpoints involving the crusades to trickle up, but stay them a moment. Are kings seeking wealth and power, and a then-corrupt Roman bureacracy actually examples of Faith and religion, or of more secular, political motives?
The point: Believing in something higher than your own mortal self is not a rejection of science. Not everyone who listens to an iPod "enjoying its effect", the product of science, is rejecting Faith or religion. Science cannot disprove the existence of God; by the very definition of an Almighty, this is impossible. There is no reason outside politics of convenience (think secular liberals or witch burners) that the two cannot coexist.
DATABASE WOW WOW