Originally Posted by Carnage88
It's interesting I agree with most of what you say in that bias is unavoidable, but highly disagree that scientists hypothesis are therefore equal in credibility to religions; at least scientists use testable measured means to try even if in vain to prove a clear definite end. I don't even see how quantum theory would disprove a God, rather just that it makes him unnecessary.
So the real point is not on first-order theories. The issue I have is on higher-order theories. Again, umami disagreed with me, but the way calculus works is that we have to accept the variables that the formulas are based on. Each step we make puts us further and further away from verifiable data. At it's extremes theoretical physics (which I suppose is how umami would have me classify some of the theories) is so loosely based on anything tangible that it is pretty well just a complete guess. I think where it oversteps in's bounds is when it makes any religious assertions. Nothing in the data says that God is unnecessary if the big bang happened. That is an exclusionary stance and is an EXACT contradiction to Hawkings stance that trying to figure out what happened before the big bang is an aimless endeavor. If you don't know then just say, the math is too complex at this time for us to hypothesis what happened prior to the big bang. Could God have done it? Perhaps. Did the laws of physics do it? I'm not sure, but even still the argument just goes further back to the origins of the laws. The point is that they're not exclusionary.
My opinion is that physics at it's extremes is just the doctrine of atheism, which was the whole point I was trying to make. I didn't really want to get in the debate about any specific test, but someone questioned my knowledge on the topic. I don't claim to be a physicist, but I'm not uncomfortable around calculus and more than that there's a bit of common sense that needs to be applied. The core of my position comes from a general disagreement with the interpretation of data, application of the variables and later, the assertions that are made with ANY theistic implications. There are no theistic implications to science. Period.
Did evolution happen? I don't know. The preponderance of evidence supports that. Did a supernatural being start this process? Again, science can never and will never know. That's left to your own interpretations. The data by itself is not exclusionary. The evidences definitely support the hypothesis, and I personally have no issue accepting the process as fact WITHOUT religious implications.
People accuse religion of being controlling by telling people what to think. When science passes off it's interpretation of data as fact then it's guilty of the exact SAME DOGMA. This lack of substantiated evidence is just exercised faith with atheistic interpretations.
I'm a simple guy... In conveying my idea I may not have done the best job, but I am not trying to make anyone see it my exact way. I just want people to understand that many of these things passed off as fact and with religious implications are not fact at all and furthermore have no religious implications without an individual's interpretation (which is biased).