NationStates Jolt Archive

Intelligent Design would be OK in schools if there was enough SCIENTIFIC evidence for it to be taught in SCIENCE class alongside evolutionary theory, without any nonsense about God.

We do, however, know that the estimated amounts of Carbon-17 in fossilized organisms is likely incorrect, and, if followed back far enough in fossil terms, would require extremely large amounts of radioactive carbon in the early earth. If there were such radioactivity, early creatures would have been unable to survive, and, thus, carbon dating measurements must be in err, or the estimated amount of radioactive elements present at time of death.

incorrect. firstly, it is carbon-14, not 17. C-17 has a halflife measured in microseconds, and is therefore not naturally occuring. on the other hand, C-14 has a halflife of 5730 years.

secondly, C-14 is created at a nearly constant rate by cosmic rays. and likewise decays at one. this is observed data.

thirdly, you don't have a clue how radiometric dating works (surprise, surprise). C-14 combines with oxygen just like stable isotopes of carbon, and forms CO2. this radioactive CO2 mixes in with the rest of the CO2 in a certain proportion (lots of C-12, very little C-14). it is then absorbed into living things in the same ratio as the outside world. when the organism dies, it stops cycling CO2 and the CO2 that was in it becomes trapped. then we can use measurements of the ratio between C-12 and C-14 in the thing to determine how much of the C-14 has decayed. if it is within 9 halflives or so, we can use the decay rate to give a very good measurement of the time when the organism stopped ingesting CO2 - after nine there isn't enough C-14 left to accurately measure.

fourthly, C-14 dating has been checked against things we know the age of, both to test the system and to calibrate the amount of C-14 in earlier times. every properly run test has supported the conclusion that radiometric dating works, and amazingly accurately at that.

fifthly, if you don't know anything about a subject, why would you open your mouth about it and prove yourself a fool?

Which is why carbon testing isn't really used that much. Your point is moot.

where would you get a silly idea like that? radiometric dating works, and is used constantly. carbon dating is used for pretty much everything younger than 50,000 ybp.

I can't help but wonder... is there any research in the field of creationism?

none with any merit or that find creationist hypotheses to be anything more than trivial falsehoods.

the closest you've got is people like behe arguing that because he doesn't personally know the evolutionary pathways of various biochemical things in cells they must be totally beyond explanation and require intelligent design. of course, pretty much every system that behe has pointed to actually does have a plausible evolutionary pathway that we know of, many of them were known before he wrote his book.

on the other end of things you have various young earthers making forgeries and lying to people and calling it research. but they are just con-men and flim-flam artists.

that's just not true at all. for example, gallileo figures out some of the how of gravity. newton gives a fuller account of the how, but is bothered by the fact that all he can say for why is that there is some sort of spooky action at a distance going on. einstein provides the why with the curvature of space-time. why is the second major motivating question of science. i see no reason to think that second or third order whys are necessarily outside the bounds of it.

The curvature isn't the why - it is still how. THe space-time curvature explains how gravity comes to be.

Why would be - "Why does space-time exist?" "Why is there a space-time curvature?"

Those types of questions are irrelevant in science.

No, evolution has failed in its gradualistic presentation of its core God-dismissing values.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that in any way dismissed God. Sorry.

So they have had to resort to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, which essentially says that totally different creatures appear suddenly, and not with gradual change.

It doesn't say any such thing. Try again.

Old Earth Theory essentially requries that the Bible not be absolutely literally true. You see, if Adam evolved, then God did not make him personally, which would be unbiblical. However, the Hebrew word "Yom", for "day", can mean "long period". This point is currently a subject of secondary debate. This would allow for periods longer than a day, but still rule out any possibility of evolution as a tool for God's creation.

Interestingly, the Young Earth Creationist idea requires that the Bible not be absolutely literally true as well, since there are two Creation stories in Genesis, and they contradict each other.

And as for the transitions, you don't need one to disprove the case. You need transitions for every single change in species to actually prove evolution.

Science can never prove anything, nor is proving its goal.

Science works by having evidence that supports or disproves a given hypothesis. With enough support, that hypothesis can become theory. However, a single piece of contradictory evidence either disproves the theory, or causes it to be changed. In this way, science is self-correcting. That's the way it works.

You see, burden of proof lies upon the accusator. Evolution has long accused Theism and Creationism of being incorrect.

Evolution hsa not "accused Theism of being incorrect." There is nothing about evolution that in any way implies atheism. There is nothign that implies theism either. This is because the question of whether or not God exists is outside the realm of science - and is thus irrelevant to any scientific theory.

There are no fossils of a raptor-like creature becoming a tyrannisaurus-type creature.
Eotyrannus. I win. You lose.

Plus, tyrannosaurids didn't evolve from birds, so your argument is pure bullshit anyways.

The curvature isn't the why - it is still how. THe space-time curvature explains how gravity comes to be.

Why would be - "Why does space-time exist?" "Why is there a space-time curvature?"

Those types of questions are irrelevant in science.

except that those very question have been scientifically explored. they may be irrelevant to some particular issue at hand, but that doesn't put them outside the bounds of scientific investigation.

why and how aren't really all that different. the question of gravity can be expressed as either "why do masses interact in certain regular ways?" or "how does gravity function. the answer to both is the same. likewise, i can easily express the above mentioned question as how questions; does that make them suddenly jump back into scienceland?

if i rewrite your your statement about space-time curvature as "the space-time curvature explains why masses interact through what we refer to as gravity", in what way does meaningfully differ from the original? why is a perfectly good question in science.

However, a single piece of contradictory evidence either disproves the theory, or causes it to be changed.

not in practice. unless it is a particularly striking piece of evidence, it will first be written off as some sort of error or just largely ignored. but where there is one problem there will be more, and somebody will eventually feel the need to revise or scrap the old theory. so it still works.

except that those very question have been scientifically explored. they may be irrelevant to some particular issue at hand, but that doesn't put them outside the bounds of scientific investigation.

why and how aren't really all that different. the question of gravity can be expressed as either "why do masses interact in certain regular ways?" or "how does gravity function. the answer to both is the same. likewise, i can easily express the above mentioned question as how questions; does that make them suddenly jump back into scienceland?

if i rewrite your your statement about space-time curvature as "the space-time curvature explains why masses interact through what we refer to as gravity", in what way does meaningfully differ from the original? why is a perfectly good question in science.

It differs because you have moved out of the fundamentals.

"Why does space-time curvature exist?" is incredibly different from "Why do masses interact through gravity?"

Gravity is not the fundamental force - it is a result of that force. However, when we trace everything back to the absolute fundamental forces and rules, we cannot ask why they exist - not with science anyways. We just know that they are there.

You are, intentionally or unintentionally, avoiding the point and building strawman arguments. Someone stated that scientific theory does not explain why the rules are as they are. This is true. The fundamental rules are there - and the universe is run by them. Why are they there? That is not for science to tell.

not in practice. unless it is a particularly striking piece of evidence, it will first be written off as some sort of error or just largely ignored.

If by "written off", you mean "retested to see if it repeats," you are correct.

A single experiment won't bring down a theory, because one does not know if it is repeatable. If it is, however, repeatable, and its results contradict a theory, then the theory is incorrect.

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

I would be scared if I were you, too. In the free market of ideas, the truth will prevail.

Obviously, a break in that monopoly will seriously compromise the acceptance of your beliefs.

I would be scared if I were you, too. In the free market of ideas, the truth will prevail.

Not if the ideas in question can't even be compared, as one is science and the other is simple speculation. Teaching ID as science is no different from teaching the stork method of birth as science.

Obviously, a break in that monopoly will seriously compromise the acceptance of your beliefs.

This has nothing to do with compromising beliefs - at least not from those who look at science as science. Why? Because the only "belief" science requires is that evidence supports an idea.

Having ID around doesn't compromise evolutionary theory at all. However, teaching something that, even on its best day, falls well short of being scientific, as science compromises scientific integrity. Doing so will seriously dumb down our future generations of kids going into science - making science itself much less useful.

You are, intentionally or unintentionally, avoiding the point and building strawman arguments. Someone stated that scientific theory does not explain why the rules are as they are. This is true. The fundamental rules are there - and the universe is run by them. Why are they there? That is not for science to tell.

assuming we have already arrived at the actual fundamental rules. i see no reason to be so sure about that. and the only way to find out is to keep asking why. maybe we have gotten there - if so, the answers will lie outside of the universe and will be untestable (as far as we know thus far, anyway). but maybe not. now isn't the time to throw in the towel. it could very well have been the case that the ultimate reason for gravity was just some fundamental spooky action at a distance. then any further questioning, why or how, wouldn't have gotten anywhere. but the questions need to be explored before you can make that determination.

If by "written off", you mean "retested to see if it repeats," you are correct.

A single experiment won't bring down a theory, because one does not know if it is repeatable. If it is, however, repeatable, and its results contradict a theory, then the theory is incorrect.

i actually do mean written off. as kuhn, lakatos, and pals have shown, contradictions and inconsistencies don't necessarily matter in the social enterprise of science. at least not immediately. a theory can keep chugging right along with a good number of "unimportant" failings. theory only changes when scientists decide that those failings actually are important.

assuming we have already arrived at the actual fundamental rules. i see no reason to be so sure about that. and the only way to find out is to keep asking why. maybe we have gotten there - if so, the answers will lie outside of the universe and will be untestable (as far as we know thus far, anyway). but maybe not. now isn't the time to throw in the towel. it could very well have been the case that the ultimate reason for gravity was just some fundamental spooky action at a distance. then any further questioning, why or how, wouldn't have gotten anywhere. but the questions need to be explored before you can make that determination.

But, the philosophical "why?" that was brought up is not the same as the functional "why?" (which is really more of a "how?") that you are talking about. When you say, "Why does gravity exist?" You are really asking, "What rules of the universe cause gravity to work in the way that it does? How do those rules work?" You aren't asking, "Why do they work this way?"

I'm not suggesting that we should stop investigating - not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't keep digging deeper. However, the fundamental question of "Why do things work the way they work?" is not something that science can answer, nor is it a goal of science to do so.

i actually do mean written off. as kuhn, lakatos, and pals have shown, contradictions and inconsistencies don't necessarily matter in the social enterprise of science. at least not immediately. a theory can keep chugging right along with a good number of "unimportant" failings. theory only changes when scientists decide that those failings actually are important.

To be a valid theory, there can be no contradictions and inconsistencies. People may still continue with it in certain situations, as a best-guess (ie. Newton's laws - which have been disproven but work well enough in certain situations). However, the theory itself has been disproven. People may keep using it as a starting point, but everyone knows that if inconsistencies and contradictions exist, the theory itself needs revisions - and we must find those revisions.

Interestingly, the Young Earth Creationist idea requires that the Bible not be absolutely literally true as well, since there are two Creation stories in Genesis, and they contradict each other.
They technically don't, but no Biblical literalist would ever accept the reason why. See, the early Hebrews were henotheists. Genesis 1 describes the creations of all the elohim, while Genesis 2 describes the creations of one particular eloha, YHWH.

They technically don't, but no Biblical literalist would ever accept the reason why. See, the early Hebrews were henotheists. Genesis 1 describes the creations of all the elohim, while Genesis 2 describes the creations of one particular eloha, YHWH.

That's one possible way to look at it, although I have seen little evidence of this.

Of course, that doesn't change the time contradictions - such as the fact that animals were created twice in the Bible, once before all of humankind, and once after Adam.

But, the philosophical "why?" that was brought up is not the same as the functional "why?" (which is really more of a "how?") that you are talking about. When you say, "Why does gravity exist?" You are really asking, "What rules of the universe cause gravity to work in the way that it does? How do those rules work?" You aren't asking, "Why do they work this way?"

your distinction lacks a division. you want to say that there is some other meaning for "why does gravity exist?" that has an answer that a priori falls outside the realm of scientific investigation, but i don't see how. whether a person means "describe the mechanisms through which the set of interactions we refer to as gravity works" or "how come gravity works this way and not some other way?", i see no fundamental a priori distinction between them. what is the reason that we cannot even attempt to answer the second question scientifically? are all attempts to explain gravity by some even more fundamental principle doomed to fail?

we do not know the boundaries of what science can actually explain. until we do, no why question is necessarily out of bounds.

However, the fundamental question of "Why do things work the way they work?" is not something that science can answer, nor is it a goal of science to do so.

funny, i would say that this has been the very question driving the entire scientific project since the beginning.

your distinction lacks a division. you want to say that there is some other meaning for "why does gravity exist?" that has an answer that a priori falls outside the realm of scientific investigation, but i don't see how. whether a person means "describe the mechanisms through which the set of interactions we refer to as gravity works" or "how come gravity works this way and not some other way?", i see no fundamental a priori distinction between them. what is the reason that we cannot even attempt to answer the second question scientifically? are all attempts to explain gravity by some even more fundamental principle doomed to fail?

You are still talking about a functional question, rather than a philosophical one.

The philosophical question isn't, "How does the Universe work?" It is "Why does the Universe exist?" It isn't "Why does gravity work this way and not another?" It is, "Why are the fundamental rules that govern the universe what they are?"

Science cannot answer these questions because science only works within the realm of the universe - as it is. We can't answer the question of why the fundamentals aren't different. The simple answer is just that they aren't different and that is all we know. We can go back as far as we can in how the universe came to be, but we can't answer why it came to be.

we do not know the boundaries of what science can actually explain. until we do, no why question is necessarily out of bounds.

To a point, we do. Science can only answer questions that pertain to the Universe, for instance. We cannot answer any questions about what may or may not exist outside of it. It is outside the realm of science - as the rules would be completely different.

funny, i would say that this has been the very question driving the entire scientific project since the beginning.

That is because you are still equating "why?" with "how?"

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]Not if the ideas in question can't even be compared, as one is science and the other is simple speculation. Teaching ID as science is no different from teaching the stork method of birth as science.[QUOTE]

If that was true, you (plural) wouldn't be so concerned.

The philosophical question isn't, "How does the Universe work?" It is "Why does the Universe exist?"

all good questions are philosophical questions.

i can't make heads or tails of your point. unless why questions for you are solely about teleology, perhaps. "what is the purpose of the universe existing?" or something similar. otherwise, why questions are just questions about causes. and causes are generally scientifically examinable. "what caused the universe to exist?" or "what caused the fundamental rules to be what they are?" don't seem like they necessarily cannot be answered scientifically. there is only one way to find out whether they can be, and it doesn't involve declaring them out of bounds.

are not physicists and cosmologists working to answer these very questions? they certainly claim they are.

It isn't "Why does gravity work this way and not another?" It is, "Why are the fundamental rules that govern the universe what they are?"

other than refering to all of the rules instead of just gravity, those questions are completely identical.

If that was true, you (plural) wouldn't be so concerned.

we are worried because the idiots in power agree with the idiots on the street that ignorance, stupidity, and lies ought to be taught with the authority of science in the only venue most americans will ever have the chance to encounter science in.

we would be equally worried if storkism was ever openly supported by legislatures and presidents.

If that was true, you (plural) wouldn't be so concerned.
Would you be concerned if schools taught that disease is caused by invisible gnomes in health class? Undermining children's education is something everyone should be concerned about.

If that was true, you (plural) wouldn't be so concerned.


Are you telling me that you wouldn't be concerned if someone was teaching our children that it was a fact that babies were brought by storks?

You wouldn't be concerned if it were policy that math teachers teach that 4+6=88?

You wouldn't be concerned if history teachers were supposed to teach that the Roman empire never existed?

You wouldn't be concerned if literature teachers were supposed to teach that Homer wrote Romeo and Juliet?


all good questions are philosophical questions.

Hardly, unless you want to discount science altogether.

i can't make heads or tails of your point. unless why questions for you are solely about teleology, perhaps. "what is the purpose of the universe existing?" or something similar.

There you go. You're getting to it. Asking why the universe is the way it is is exactly like asking what the purpose of it existing is.

otherwise, why questions are just questions about causes.

No, those are how questions.

and causes are generally scientifically examinable.

Generally, but not always.

"what caused the universe to exist?" or "what caused the fundamental rules to be what they are?" don't seem like they necessarily cannot be answered scientifically.

The answers to these questions would, by logical necessity, lie outside the universe itself - and thus outside the realm of science.

there is only one way to find out whether they can be, and it doesn't involve declaring them out of bounds.

It has nothing to do with "declaring them out of bounds." By their very definition, they are out of bounds.

are not physicists and cosmologists working to answer these very questions? they certainly claim they are.

No, they aren't. They are trying to figure out how the universe came into existence. They are trying to find out what the fundamental rules are. They are not asking why the universe came into existence, why it is here, why it is the way it is. They are not asking why the fundamental rules exist, or why those rules are what they are. They are simply seeking to understand the rules, and to use them.

other than refering to all of the rules instead of just gravity, those questions are completely identical.

No, they aren't. Not by a long-shot. In one case you are asking how something works - and how it is dependent upon fundamental rules. In the other, you are asking why the fundamental rules, which are not dependent upon anything but themselves, are what they are.

A mathematics analog would be as follows:
Your question: "Why does 2+2=4?" This could be explained by going to the fundamental rules and definitions of the word.

The more philosophical questions: "Why is 2, 2?" "Why does addition involve combining two/more numbers to get another number?" The answers to these questions do not lie in mathematics. The fact that 2 describes a pair of objects and that addition is combining numbers to get another value are the fundamentals of mathematics. There is no way to answer the "why?" question within mathematics - that is simply the way they are defined.

please put up or shut the fuck up.

No need for insults, Free Soviets. Keep to the debate without resorting to them.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

No need for insults, Free Soviets. Keep to the debate without resorting to them.

noted, though i'm not sure if "shut the fuck up" actually counts as an insult - more of a generic use of vulgarity for emphasis.

and you have to admit, the creationists haven't made much noise since then.

There you go. You're getting to it. Asking why the universe is the way it is is exactly like asking what the purpose of it existing is.

only if you arbitrarily restrict the domain of why questions to rule out most of them. why questions are always questions about causes. some of those causes might in some instances be teleological/purpose driven. but when we ask a why question what we want laid out are the causes.

"why did x happen?"
"because of y and z."

you claimed that the statement "why does the universe work like this?" was outside of the realm of science. but this can only be the case if the only acceptable answer is teleological (and i would argue not necessarily even then - it is not outside the realm of possibility that we could actually scientifically determine whether there was some teleological purpose to the universe, providing such a purpose behind its creation left some sort of mark). however, the efficient causes for why various things in the universe happen the way they do also make excellent answers to that question and it is science's business to figure out those causes.

then we go on and ask 'why?' for those causes again, and so on. i'd rather not declare it "turtles all the way down" yet. there may be further answers to be discovered. there may be some even more fundamental unity behind what we think are the fundamental rules of the universe. facts about other existing universes in a multiverse may actually have some sort of discenable impact on our own. we don't know yet.

and if we actually do get down to some level beyond which we literally cannot find out 'why?' through the use of science, it still will not be outside of the bounds of science to keep asking. unless it is divinely revealed to all of us, the chain of 'why?' will go on.

declaring the question "why does this thing which we take to be a fundamental law work like this?" out of bounds is precisely to stop expanding the map of science and writing "beyond here there be dragons".



and the answer to the question "why is the universe the way it is?" is that as far as we can tell, the universe operates on certain rules and began with certain initial conditions. a person seeking a teleological answer based on god's will won't be satisfied with that answer, but those people don't like science in general. too bad for them. they didn't like it when we told them why we have thunderstorms or why rainbows exist either.

only if you arbitrarily restrict the domain of why questions to rule out most of them. why questions are always questions about causes.

No, "How?" is about cause. "Why?" is about purpose.

"why did x happen?"
"because of y and z."

But your answer doesn't answer "why". It tells you what caused x to happen - how x came about.

you claimed that the statement "why does the universe work like this?" was outside of the realm of science. but this can only be the case if the only acceptable answer is teleological (and i would argue not necessarily even then - it is not outside the realm of possibility that we could actually scientifically determine whether there was some teleological purpose to the universe, providing such a purpose behind its creation left some sort of mark).

Any such mark would be part of the universe itself - and our description would thus incoporate it as such, not as some sort of purpose. Interpreting it as a teleological purpose would introduce an untestable hypothesis - that there was such a purpose - and would thus be outside the scientific method.

Meanwhile, asking what purpose the universe serves - why it is what it is - can, by definition, only have a teleological answer.

however, the efficient causes for why various things in the universe happen the way they do also make excellent answers to that question and it is science's business to figure out those causes.

No, those answers tell us how the universe works - not why the rules are what they are. You are still not differentiating between explaining how the universe works and digging back to the fundamental rules (the realm of science) and asking why those rules are there at all .

i'd rather not declare it "turtles all the way down" yet. there may be further answers to be discovered. there may be some even more fundamental unity behind what we think are the fundamental rules of the universe.

No one, least of all myself, is suggesting that we should do any such thing. Science will always keep digging - will always keep looking for deeper fundamentals. I'm not suggesting that we have found the fundamentals, only that, should we have them, science would not be able to answer why they exist, or why they are fundamental. Using the scientific method, these questions simply cannot be answered - as they are untestable.

It isn't that I am saying that science should limit itself to certain questions - not by a long shot. It is simply that science is, by definition, limited to that which can be possibly tested and that which exists within our universe.

You seem to want to talk in absolutes here, which I have not been doing. I am speaking in the abstract - of points we can logically never get to.

facts about other existing universes in a multiverse may actually have some sort of discenable impact on our own. we don't know yet.

If "other universes" interacted with our own, and we could test for them, they would, by definition, be part of our universe. Physicists have misused the term when they talk about "other universes" or the "multiverse." By definition, that which we can possibly test for is part of one universe. If a "multiverse" exists, it is, by definition, a single universe.


and the answer to the question "why is the universe the way it is?" is that as far as we can tell, the universe operates on certain rules and began with certain initial conditions. a person seeking a teleological answer based on god's will won't be satisfied with that answer, but those people don't like science in general. too bad for them. they didn't like it when we told them why we have thunderstorms or why rainbows exist either.

Wow, I never figured you for a bigot. Good to know that you think anyone who believes in a God "doesn't like science in general" (never mind that most scientists are not atheists) and won't accept scientific explanations.

Meanwhile, "The universe operates on certain rules and began with certain intitial conditions," does not explain why those rules exist, why those rules are what they are, or why those initial conditions were what they were.

All it does is explain how the universe got to be the way it is.

Edit: I realized that this could suggest that anyone asking a teleological question must be religious - which is also not true. Someone who asked the question, "Why is the universe here?" or "Why are the fundamental rules what they are?" might come up with the answer that there is no answer. They might believe that there is no purpose. Thus, God does not have to come into the equation at all in the question.

But your answer doesn't answer "why". It tells you what caused x to happen - how x came about.

then your argument is with the english language.

btw:

why does the universe have these fundamental rules?
that's just how god chose to do it.

looks like god's actions are a 'how' question and are therefore part of science.

oops

it gets even worse:

how did god create those fundamental rules?

oh damn, now i've done it.

Meanwhile, "The universe operates on certain rules and began with certain intitial conditions," does not explain why those rules exist, why those rules are what they are, or why those initial conditions were what they were.

what do you know, a scientific answer to a 'why' question opened up some further questions. i, for one, am utterly shocked.

why does the universe have these fundamental rules?
that's just how god chose to do it.

Now provide scientific evidence for it - and a scientific test that can provide said evidence. Oh wait, you can't....

That's certainly a possible answer, but not one that could possibly be arrived at through scientific means. The existence or non-existence of God is, by definition, outside the realm of science because it posits the existence or non-existence of something outside our universe - something outside the rules of our universe - and thus something that cannot be tested or measured. Any idea relying on the existence or non-existence of a God is, by definition, unscientific.

how did god create those fundamental rules?

Actually, if you asked how the fundamental rules came to be, that would be a scientific question.

You have, unfortunately, introduced the assumption that God did so, and thus stepped outside of scientific boundaries by basing your question on an untestable and unfalsifiable being.

oh damn, now i've done it.

Gone completely outside of science? Yeah, pretty much.

Where did you get that external metaphysical shit from? Matter can not be created or destroyed. Period.
E=mc^2
nuclear energy erm, yes it can

what do you know, a scientific answer to a 'why' question opened up some further questions.

Actually, it left the exact same question, while answering the 'how'? of it.

Meanwhile, those new questions cannot be tested. We cannot test why the fundamentals are what they are - they are the fundamentals - there is nothing behind them to "cause" them, at least not within our universe (which is what we can test).

We cannot find out why those initial conditions were what they were, through any testing, because they were the very first conditions in our universe - and are thus the limit of what we can test.

alright, this has gotten silly.

do you agree that the question,
"why is the sky blue?",
is a question with a scientific answer? if so, would that answer be a good answer to the question, or would it be missing some vital component necessary to really answer a question that uses the word 'why'?

Actually I think the marriage between religion and science is well defined. The heisenberg uncertainty principle states that we cannot know where a sub atomic particle is and how fast it's going. Which fits nicely with many religions saying that we cannot see things as they really are because there's a veil of our own perceptions in the way. Also the quantum uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to predict exactly what a sub-atomic particle will do, but you can work out how likely it is to do certain things. Or as I like to see it, we can see how God weights the dice, but we can't predict the result of the grand plan. Thinking this I can see God's work in everything. And I don't compromise any of my scientific beliefs. I don't think God was ever meant to.

Or maybe we just worked out the universe and it was replaced by something more strange :)

alright, this has gotten silly.

do you agree that the question,
"why is the sky blue?",
is a question with a scientific answer? if so, would that answer be a good answer to the question, or would it be missing some vital component necessary to really answer a question that uses the word 'why'?

In truth, it would depend on the intentions of the person behind the question.

Some people use "why" and "how" interchangeably, as you do. Thus, the person in question might be asking how the sky is blue - and the answer would come down to the refraction of light, etc.

However, some people use "why" in a different way from "how" - a more philosophical way (for instance, the poster who began this whole conversation). At first I thought you, and others, were being facetious in your answers. Now I am convinced that you truly did not understand the question. In that case, they are not asking what causes the sky to be blue. Instead, they are asking why the universe came to be (however it came to be) in such a way that the sky would be blue. Because the investigations of science are, by definition, limited to this universe, they cannot explain why the universe came to be at all, much less why it came to be in the way that it did.

We can conceivably answer "how", all the way back to the fundamental rules and initial conditions you spoke of earlier. But, by definition, any "why" beyond that lies outside the universe as it currently exists - which is all we can test. Thus, those questions, by definition, lie outside the realm of science.

I weigh the evidence objectively. I'm seeing a lot more evidence for a metaphysical Being creating the universe than for the universe to have spontaneously generated. Maybe if the universe was eternal, then I would be agnostic. But, it has been proven not to be. A little too coincidental, don'tcha think?

That isn't logical, though. Your logic is, as I interpret it, is as follows: the world could not have been spontaneously generated, therefore there must have been a (spontaneously generated) God who created it.

Why must there have to be a reason for the universe to be here and not one for God? :p

Actually I think the marriage between religion and science is well defined. The heisenberg uncertainty principle states that we cannot know where a sub atomic particle is and how fast it's going. Which fits nicely with many religions saying that we cannot see things as they really are because there's a veil of our own perceptions in the way.

The uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with limits to our perceptions and everything to do with the fact that observing something changes its properties (since you have to bounces a photon or similar particle off it to find out where it is, you change its velocity, etc).

I usually have no problem with religious people using science, but mis-understanding it and mis-using it is what bothers me.

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Intelligent and Bush should not go together...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/graphics/th_gbc24.jpg

E=mc^2
nuclear energy erm, yes it can
To be perfectly accurate, the rule is "Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed to a different form." I must admit that I don't know if the spontaneous creation of matter and antimatter is covered by this or not. If it requires energy to do so, that rule still applies. If energy is not required, the rule fails.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that Bush was intelligently designed...

Somehow I find it hard to believe that Bush was intelligently designed...Creationists version... God was high on cocaine that day.
Darwinists version: Freak mutation.