Gravity doesn't exist...

[Phoenix Wright]

...according to string theorist Erik Verlinde. Basically (since you can read the article yourself), he says that "gravity" works the way elasticity works: it "emerges" through more basic forms (ie, elasticity doesn't "exist" per se, only through atoms can something be elastic). He believes that this is a way to explain things like dark matter and dark energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&no_interstitial

Thoughts on this?

[Ignatius117]

I found it very interesting and fun to think about; gravity can be thought of as two objects placing restrictions in movement on each other, sort of like a three-legged race. The absence of gravity is actually more orderly than with; only inertia is a factor, and not an outside force.

[quanta]

At some point in the next week, I'll try to get around to reading the original paper(s) and putting a summary (alternate to or expansion of the linked summary) for you guys (if I can make heads or tails of it). I've heard of similar ideas before and it looks interesting enough.

[Dark Sage]

Sounds familiar. I once watched something about string theory and it said something around the same thing.

[Esau of Isaac]

At some point in the next week, I'll try to get around to reading the original paper(s) and putting a summary (alternate to or expansion of the linked summary) for you guys (if I can make heads or tails of it). I've heard of similar ideas before and it looks interesting enough.

I'd like that. Most of us plebes don't get all of this fancy stuff. :P

[quanta]

I'd like that. Most of us plebes don't get all of this fancy stuff. :P

Man, the more I learn, the less I feel I get. Or the more I think "Man, it's fucking amazing that any of our well-tested theories even work."

[bunny: spider bitten]

Doesn't really explain the tide, but okay.

[Esau of Isaac]

Man, the more I learn, the less I feel I get. Or the more I think "Man, it's fucking amazing that any of our well-tested theories even work."

That's oddly comforting for me, believe it or not.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Man, the more I learn, the less I feel I get. Or the more I think "Man, it's fucking amazing that any of our well-tested theories even work."

At least you're not me. I get giddy and start slipping away into a day dream state just from thoughts like "things exist, isn't that fucking crazy?"

[volkethereaper]

Perception is existance, and if this scientist chooses not to perceive gravity, than gravity doesn't exist for him and others who are of the same mind as him. Science is just another religion, relying on fallible perception to prove its grand claims. Gravity not existing? I can dig it, but not for the same reasons he does.

[Esau of Isaac]

Perception is existance, and if this scientist chooses not to perceive gravity, than gravity doesn't exist for him and others who are of the same mind as him. Science is just another religion, relying on fallible perception to prove its grand claims. Gravity not existing? I can dig it, but not for the same reasons he does.

I don't think you understand what this man is saying.

[volkethereaper]

No, I get it. My point isn't about that, per se, more about how science like this is utterly transitory and I would encourage everyone to take it with a grain of salt. I was also a bit tired.

Edited July 22, 2010 by volkethereaper

[Esau of Isaac]

Okay. Why should everyone take science with a grain of salt?

[volkethereaper]

Because it is based on observation. What's more, it is based on human observation. Time and again even the brightest among us make serious mistakes, and even minor mistakes can have grave consequences. That is why science should be taken with a grain of salt, and that holds true for all other religions as well. Human imperfection leads to imperfect perception, and with imperfect perception the truth is hard to come by.

[Esau of Isaac]

Because it is based on observation. What's more, it is based on human observation.

The fact that it is based upon observation means individuals are capable of verifying the trustworthiness of any given hypothesis by testing it repeatedly. It's an advantage, rather than not.

Time and again even the brightest among us make serious mistakes, and even minor mistakes can have grave consequences.

Yeah, this would be a pretty fucking huge issue if science weren't an inherently iterative process.

That is why science should be taken with a grain of salt, and that holds true for all other religions as well.

*sees you calling science a religion*

Human imperfection leads to imperfect perception, and with imperfect perception the truth is hard to come by.

The truth is easier to come by when you approach it logically and systematically attempt to find it. Science does this unceasingly.

[volkethereaper]

I disagree with you on the advantageousness of repeated testing, but that seems both beside the point and unecessary. The inherent problem with string theory is the difficulty in testing it, so all this fellow can do is propose an hypothesis, which is only one of the necessary steps in creating a scientific theory proper. This idea he has presented is unscientific.

Now let us look to your second arguement: For millenia the study of astronomy was plagued by differing views, all presented by intelligent people who had done their homework. Many, perhaps even most, of them came to the conclusion that the solar system in which we live orbits our earth. We know better now. Yet, even so, a theory was presented, tested to the best of mankind's abillities, and for thousands of years false conclusions were drawn. If it took that long to realize that a theory on how something that flagrant opperated was innacurate, imagine how long it would take to realize how wrong we may be about something as subtle as gravity at the sub-atomic level? No, science takes far too long to work out its kinks.

Thirdly: the denotation of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Is that not science? Or perhaps we are weighed down by connotation? Religion is often interpreted as a belief in a Supreme Being, of which there is no "real" evidence, while science, due to its, how did you say, "iterative nature", is based on observable facts. But, the best science can do, when it comes to saying how we're here, is to say random chance is the only explaination. Now tell me, how is random chance observable? Certainly we can see that a coin sometimes lands on heads and other times tales, but can we realistically test whether that coin, upon landing heads, could also, at the exact same time, have had a chance of landing tales? So, you see, science comes down to faith, also. We believe that it could have been tales, because it seems logical. But, here's just an idea, a Supreme Being may seem logical to some people, also. Neither can really be tested, both are religions.

As to your final point: Search for truth in your own way, and if you find enlightenment Siddhartha, be sure to return and share it with me. As for me, I remain with the Brahmans.

[Esau of Isaac]

I disagree with you on the advantageousness of repeated testing, but that seems both beside the point and unecessary. The inherent problem with string theory is the difficulty in testing it, so all this fellow can do is propose an hypothesis, which is only one of the necessary steps in creating a scientific theory proper. This idea he has presented is unscientific.

Yeah, and as we all know, the scientific community is entirely accepting of string theory, and there is no debate over its worthiness.

Now let us look to your second arguement: For millenia the study of astronomy was plagued by differing views, all presented by intelligent people who had done their homework. Many, perhaps even most, of them came to the conclusion that the solar system in which we live orbits our earth. We know better now. Yet, even so, a theory was presented, tested to the best of mankind's abillities, and for thousands of years false conclusions were drawn. If it took that long to realize that a theory on how something that flagrant opperated was innacurate, imagine how long it would take to realize how wrong we may be about something as subtle as gravity at the sub-atomic level? No, science takes far too long to work out its kinks.

Nevermind that there were several repeated attempts to introduce a more readily accurate worldview, without success because of religious persecution or overall views. Also note the hoops that geocentrists had to jump through just to make their views work properly.

Thirdly: the denotation of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Is that not science?

Um, no? Science is a process utilized to methodically experiment, it has nothing to do with any beliefs about the purpose of the universe. A branch of scientific thought may pertain to the nature of the universe, but to say that it is a religion because it even discusses the situation is looking at the definition of religion in a pretty fucking silly manner.

But it's only meant to be inflammatory anyways, so I'll roll with it.

Or perhaps we are weighed down by connotation? Religion is often interpreted as a belief in a Supreme Being, of which there is no "real" evidence, while science, due to its, how did you say, "iterative nature", is based on observable facts. But, the best science can do, when it comes to saying how we're here, is to say random chance is the only explaination.

I'm sorry?

Now tell me, how is random chance observable? Certainly we can see that a coin sometimes lands on heads and other times tales, but can we realistically test whether that coin, upon landing heads, could also, at the exact same time, have had a chance of landing tales?

Yeah. We can look at the fucking coin. The fact that it's a coin, and thus is composed of two sides, precludes the possibility of it landing on both heads and tails.

Literally statistics 101.

So, you see, science comes down to faith, also.

I suppose, if you render the meaning of the word faith to such a general term that it means jack shit. Then yeah, science requires faith. So does going to sleep and assuming you won't wake up being buttfucked by a hippo, though.

We believe that it could have been tales, because it seems logical. But, here's just an idea, a Supreme Being may seem logical to some people, also. Neither can really be tested, both are religions.

It may seem logical, but it's not. That's the clincher.

[volkethereaper]

Now, now old boy, is swearing really necessary? Your ethos suffers. Surely there are other words you can use, words that display your intelligence rather than your frustration with a particularly frustrating person. and his equally frustrating argument?

Now as to your arguments:

First off, I like your sarcasm. It made me chuckle.

Secondly, science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the material world gained through observation and experimentation." Now, this seems to me to be somewhere between your definition and mine (if a little closer to yours), so I'm willing to conceed the point of what science is defined as to you. However, the goals of science are far more difficult to define adequately. A game stab may be to say that the goal of science is to find how things function and why they function. You may disagree, and you are free to do so. But working off this idea, are science and religion not, at their fundamental core, the same? Are the many disciplines of religion not an attempt to find the same basic answers of how things function and why they function? And why does a different approach to the same concept preclude similar classification? Are Buddhism, Catholicism, and Animism not all religions, despite vast differences in history, sacraments, and beliefs? Why can't science be among them?

By the way, I'm not trying to be inflammatory (it just sometimes comes with the territory), I'm trying to state a point of view and, if I'm lucky, inspire someone to think outside the box they've put themselves in. And, if I'm even luckier, to have someone open my box and set my mind free.

As to your question, I'm effectively calling random chance a Supreme Being. Supreme Concept, though, may be a more acurate title.

As to your third point: If you flip a coin and it lands heads how do you know with a certainty that heads, no matter what could have occured, may not have been the side facing you? The truth is you can't know for certain that the coin couldn't always have been heads at that coin flip. So instead you believe in a theory which makes an enormous amount of sense, that being the theory of probability. But we can't look at that coin and know for certain that, at that precise moment the coin could just as easily been tails. It is physically impossible to do so. So, you see, believing in this concept requires faith. You may think it is very little faith, but I find that sort of faith, as with all others, enormous, and I applaud you for it. I think that takes care of point four, as well.

Finally, I challenge you to disprove the legitamacy a Supreme Being. Now this can't be done squarely on the grounds of science, as anything can be defeated with ease on the opposing side's battlefield. You must defeat the concept on religion's terms. To do so will require a well reasoned arguement, which so far you have been incapable of providing. A concept like the Supreme Being deserves a little more reasoning than your witty little quips about bestial sodomy. You seem to be an intelligent man, all I ask is that you demonstrate it.

One more thing: I fear we have grown so far off topic that perhaps a new thread is in order. What say you?

Edited July 23, 2010 by volkethereaper

[Crystal Shards]

Criterion for making fun of/critiquing word usage:

1. Was the point expressed clearly?

2. Shut the fuck up and just ask 1.

Do you even know what you're talking about? I mean seriously. You sound like you're TRYING to be intelligent but you're just talking out of your ass. No you can't PROVE there isn't a Supreme Being just like you can't PROVE any physical entity DOESN'T exist. You can prove theories are wrong (inasmuch as this topic is talking about) but you can't say x doesn't exist as a physical entity. So you can't TELL me that unicorns aren't real, you can't TELL me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real, but you can tell me there's no evidence, and having faith in something like unicorns or FSM is illogical, and it IS. If, in the future, we find a unicorn, well then science adapts. That's the point of science. It's an explanation of what is going on in an environment, or the universe, or whatever area you are focusing on. It doesn't tell us why we're here, or what we're supposed to do, it doesn't offer us salvation, it doesn't have rites or passages or rituals. So no, we don't HAVE to use religion's terms because no religions have the same terms. OF COURSE you can say, "There's a God" if the very book the religion is founded on (therefore the reason the religion exists to begin with) says there is. It's called circular reasoning and it means NOTHING.

By the way, science isn't AGAINST religion if there's evidence for it. If there isn't any, it's not a personal vendetta against religion; they aren't enemies. There's no battlefield. Things either are or they aren't.

P.S. look at other topics. We're already talking about God's existence.

Esau will probably do a lot better job at making you look stupid for even suggesting half the stupid shit you've just suggested, but I just felt the need to express my utter shock that this kind of shit gets said in a legitimate discussion.

P.P.S. Buddhism (at least the Dalai Lama and many of his followers) and science are perfectly compatible, because they believe in seeing things as they are and in changing one's perceptions based on evidence. So yes, they're all religions, but that doesn't mean they're against one another. Read The Universe in a Single Atom. Even Catholicism has changed its stances on things based on scientific evidence. Sure it took them a long while to apologize to Galileo but it's all good.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[volkethereaper]

The very point of my arguement is that nothing can be proved or disproved, and that what has long been considered logical may not be thought of that way in the future. Look at the histories of medicine, astronomy, and even biology to see that what has been seen as logical and correct is now thought of as dead wrong. All I want people to see is that logic and and systematic thought aren't always correct, to open the lid of the scientific box and help others see that there may not be any certainty in this world. I have nothing against it, in fact I like it. Nevertheless, as with all disciplines of thought it has faults.

I have not said that science and religion are against one another. In fact, if you were paying attention, I said that I feel that they are in the same category. Logic and religion, on the other hand, do seem to have their quarrels. That was the challenge. Even so, the challenge was rhetorical. Of course it was impossible to suceed in, of course it was silly. That was the point. This is an eternal stalemate, and as such neither side should be taken overly seriously.

P.S. I've posted on a number of those topics and haven't recieved any responses. By the way, so far all Esau has been able to do is challenge me. He hasn't made any real arguements yet, just attacks without defense. That will not make me look like an idiot except to those who don't understand how rhetoric works.

P.P.S. The incompatability of science with Catholicism and Buddhism was not the point. The point was that two dicsiplines as different as Catholicism and Buddhism could exist in the same classification, and if that were the case, then science could fit right in. Please try to actually read my arguments before attacking them. It's clear that Esau has. He also has, thus far, shown me enough respect not to attack me personally, just my ideas. I would appreciate it if you would be willing to do the same thing. If not, than we have nothing further to discuss. To be honest, I hope Esau rips me a new one. I know he has the potential. Anything to inspire thought is good. :)

P.P.P.S. My ideas are not religious, and certainly not scientific. To some degree they have a basis in existentialism, but many other philosophical disciplines have made their influence known. I recomend going to your nearest library or book store and looking in the philosophy section. There are some great minds there, and new worlds of possibilities will be opened up to you.

Edited July 23, 2010 by volkethereaper

[Crystal Shards]

I understand what existentialism is and I understood your post. I just don't agree with you. If you don't want me to act like you're stupid, don't do the same to me. Don't say that because I disagree with you I don't understand philosophy or rhetoric, because I do. I just don't need to throw terms out there or stand on a high horse acting like I know stuff to make a point. For your information, since apparently it would seem important to you, I've taken (and received top marks in) university courses in philosophy; just because I don't quote various philosophers or philosophies or say that my beliefs are based on philosophy doesn't mean I don't know anything.

I never said your ideas were religious; I said they were stupid. That's my opinion, and I'm sure we can agree that I'm entitled to it. Science doesn't claim to be infallible; many religions do. It is the beauty of science that it able to adapt with new information--what was logical back then is no longer logical now BECAUSE OF NEW EVIDENCE. I fail to see how anything you've said has any relevance to the topic or really any discussion on science. The whole "nothing can be proved or disproved" existential crap sounds fancy and intelligent but it means nothing. It's not practical for living. You don't buy into science? Cool, don't take medicine "proven" to make you feel better then. Get off the computer that science built and has been "proven" to work for communication purposes.

Catholicism and Buddhism can fit in the same box because they're both religions; they both attempt to answer the same types of questions. Science is not a religion. Therefore... I think you can figure this out.

Also hurr: "Now this can't be done squarely on the grounds of science, as anything can be defeated with ease on the opposing side's battlefield. You must defeat the concept on religion's terms."

EDIT: I just realized... I think the problem here... is the influence of people. Yes, people can distort science. Yes, people can make science their religion. But by definition science and religion are two different things. If you can't hold them up to the same standards (and you yourself pulled that card), then they're not equatable.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[volkethereaper]

I hardly meant to make you feel stupid, and the recomendations were honest ones. I'm sorry that I insulted you. :(

Now, when it comes to science, there are a number of ideas which, although admittedly fallible are treated as infallible by scientists. I recomend watching Ben Stein's film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed if you haven't already.It's not all that good, and very biased, but there are a few interesting points made, if hidden behind tripe. But I have a question for you, and Esau also. Why do you believe so strongly in science? Is it just the logic thing, or because it adapts? I really am curious.

By the way, certain branches of science (and to a degree all branches of science) try to answer the same sorts of questions posed by religion. Quantam Mechanics, Biology, Paleontology, etc. ask the same sorts of questions as religion. So, tell me, if the same questions are asked and the same sort of devotion is inspired, where do religion and science differ? Adaptabillity? Can't be. New religions spring up frequently enough when new ideas and understandings come to people in established ones. Is it how they approach the questions? Approaches differ heavily from religion to religion. Is it that it can be felt easier? Than what about all those people who claim to feel the prescence of God or the Holy Spirit? Certainly there are fewer of them than feel gravity, but that's no reason to dismiss them. And what about science which can't be tested, such as Quantam Mechanics? Certainly it is an interesting theory that many people believe, but is that any different than faith in an unseen Supreme Being? Is it that science can be tested? That is something religion can't easily do, it's true. But what makes scientific tests so certain? Really, I wish to know.

The whole my argument isn't based on religion thing was more for the benefit of anyone unlucky enough to read my posts. It was not actually directed at you, but I guess you wouldn't be able to determine that. I didn't do a good job of making that clear.

P.S. Congrats on catching me in my own words. Next time I'll just have to be smarter. Thanks. ;)

P.P.S. I don't honestly think I'm all that smart. I like to ramble and enjoy a good argument.

You make a good point there about people's negative influence. I just feel that science is far more religeous than other people do. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.

By the way Crystal, I hope there's no bad blood between us.

Edited July 23, 2010 by volkethereaper

[Crystal Shards]

I misunderstood your intent. I apologize.

Science itself doesn't claim to be infallible. SCIENTISTS may tout the infallibility of something, but that, again, is a human thing. Religions on the other hand often by definition claim to be infallible (e.g. One True God, Word of God (who is the One True God), etc.). I like science because it is logical, it adapts, and it attempts to see things the way they are. No gimmicks. Science doesn't require you to worship it in order for it to have answers for you. It only asks that you follow the rules of logic, and that you base claims off of evidence. No, it's not perfect, but it's the best thing we have and, shit, look around you. What in your house do you have that wasn't discovered by scientific experiments of some kind? Trial and error? (Because I know it will be mentioned: food is not necessarily made/affected by science but it got to your kitchen through scientific means.) Science is a natural part of our lives. Religion is too but for different reasons. Religions have been there to fill the gaps that science hasn't yet (e.g. the harvest was bad this year because the Gods were angry), and usually it involves the supernatural. Sorry, can't buy it.

They may be asking the same questions but they aren't looking for the same answers. When science asks why we are here it's looking for the how we got here. When religion asks why we are here it's looking for our purpose, which assumes we have a purpose. The same devotion is not inspired. Religious people don't have a devotion to ANY religion, they have a devotion to THEIR religion. Scientists have a devotion to SCIENCE. They're devoted to the PROCESS, not the OUTCOME, at least if they're doing it right. It seems like a semantic difference to some but it's a real difference. Yes, interpretations are sometimes wrong. But it doesn't bother me that something like gravity is being questioned. Why not? What makes gravity special? Nothing. Question God though? You're going to hell. (As for people who claim to feel God, there are scientific explanations for that, but some might dismiss it because it's "not on religion's terms.") And we've had theories (colloquial meaning here) on things before we could test them, but see the thing is we don't tout them as theories (scientific meaning here) or laws without testing them. We wait until we get the technology. Was it Einstein's Theory of Relativity that was abstractly proposed before we could test it? Either way it was something by Einstein, and we remembered he said it and we'd try to test it but the technology had to catch up first. So maybe the questions we have now we can't answer right away. Fine. We'll get to it.

That is the difference between religion and science.

EDIT: My advice? Never reference Expelled again. Ben Stein is, for the most part, a hack. For Christ's sake he thinks evolution can be used to justify shit like the holocaust and compared Obama to Hitler. He said scientists were responsible for the death of the Jews. The man is a crazed conspiracy theorist at best.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Esau of Isaac]

Now, now old boy, is swearing really necessary? Your ethos suffers. Surely there are other words you can use, words that display your intelligence rather than your frustration with a particularly frustrating person. and his equally frustrating argument?

It's not necessary, but boy is it soothing. Besides, I'm firmly of the belief that swearing is makes someone cool. It's why I always wear sunglasses whenever I'm on the internet. I'm just that hip.

First off, I like your sarcasm. It made me chuckle.

Thank you. Not enough people here appreciate my biting wit.

Secondly, science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the material world gained through observation and experimentation." Now, this seems to me to be somewhere between your definition and mine (if a little closer to yours), so I'm willing to conceed the point of what science is defined as to you. However, the goals of science are far more difficult to define adequately. A game stab may be to say that the goal of science is to find how things function and why they function. You may disagree, and you are free to do so. But working off this idea, are science and religion not, at their fundamental core, the same? Are the many disciplines of religion not an attempt to find the same basic answers of how things function and why they function? And why does a different approach to the same concept preclude similar classification? Are Buddhism, Catholicism, and Animism not all religions, despite vast differences in history, sacraments, and beliefs? Why can't science be among them?

They are all religions, because they all possess demonstrably similar methodologies or overall approaches to the environment, and subsequent answers to them. Science isn't a religion because it's a method of operation. There are scientific communities that have different schools of knowledge, but at its core science is nothing more than a process carried out for observation of the environment.

As to your question, I'm effectively calling random chance a Supreme Being. Supreme Concept, though, may be a more acurate title.

Why would randomness being a Supreme Being? Or Concept, in this case?

As to your third point: If you flip a coin and it lands heads how do you know with a certainty that heads, no matter what could have occured, may not have been the side facing you? The truth is you can't know for certain that the coin couldn't always have been heads at that coin flip. So instead you believe in a theory which makes an enormous amount of sense, that being the theory of probability. But we can't look at that coin and know for certain that, at that precise moment the coin could just as easily been tails. It is physically impossible to do so. So, you see, believing in this concept requires faith. You may think it is very little faith, but I find that sort of faith, as with all others, enormous, and I applaud you for it. I think that takes care of point four, as well.

Again, I find this renders the concept of faith to be rendered useless. I'm going to abide by such simple probability as a given truth because it's been shown to be demonstrably true time and time again. Is it possible it's untrue? Sure, I suppose that on some level, it is possible that it is untrue, and that reality operates entirely differently; but the probability of it being true is so minuscule, so utterly negligent, that I'm never going to fairly acknowledge it as something to think about.

Finally, I challenge you to disprove the legitamacy a Supreme Being. Now this can't be done squarely on the grounds of science, as anything can be defeated with ease on the opposing side's battlefield. You must defeat the concept on religion's terms. To do so will require a well reasoned arguement, which so far you have been incapable of providing. A concept like the Supreme Being deserves a little more reasoning than your witty little quips about bestial sodomy. You seem to be an intelligent man, all I ask is that you demonstrate it.

Which Supreme Being am I disproving? Define the creature that I am attempting to demonstrate as illogical/

One more thing: I fear we have grown so far off topic that perhaps a new thread is in order. What say you?

I don't think anyone would mind if this topic is used.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Now, when it comes to science, there are a number of ideas which, although admittedly fallible are treated as infallible by scientists. I recomend watching Ben Stein's film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed if you haven't already.It's not all that good, and very biased, but there are a few interesting points made, if hidden behind tripe. But I have a question for you, and Esau also. Why do you believe so strongly in science? Is it just the logic thing, or because it adapts? I really am curious.

You misunderstand. When scientists say something is infallible they don't mean "will never change or be proven wrong ever", they most likely mean "there is no question about its validity at this time, and as far as we know right now, there won't be for a while". Also, Ben Stein is retarded. Expelled is a terrible, terrible film, and Ben Stein is hardly qualified to discuss his own field of expertise (economics), let alone utterly different ones such as Science. As for why I like Science, I like Science because "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works", to use a quote. It's based on facts and logic, and is always right, not because when it says something that thing is correct, but because as soon as it is shown to be incorrect it immediately becomes correct again.

By the way, certain branches of science (and to a degree all branches of science) try to answer the same sorts of questions posed by religion. Quantam Mechanics, Biology, Paleontology, etc. ask the same sorts of questions as religion.

In totally different manners.

So, tell me, if the same questions are asked and the same sort of devotion is inspired, where do religion and science differ? Adaptabillity? Can't be. New religions spring up frequently enough when new ideas and understandings come to people in established ones. Is it how they approach the questions? Approaches differ heavily from religion to religion. Is it that it can be felt easier? Than what about all those people who claim to feel the prescence of God or the Holy Spirit? Certainly there are fewer of them than feel gravity, but that's no reason to dismiss them. And what about science which can't be tested, such as Quantam Mechanics? Certainly it is an interesting theory that many people believe, but is that any different than faith in an unseen Supreme Being? Is it that science can be tested? That is something religion can't easily do, it's true. But what makes scientific tests so certain? Really, I wish to know.

Science is not a religion, because science doesn't require any faith. It doesn't require people to believe things without evidence. Science can be tested, and can be physically observed, and produces tangible results that we can actually use. In short, Science fucking works, and anyone who doesn't think it does should get off their computer which clearly doesn't exist, leave their house and city which are similarly figments of their imagination, take off all their clothes, which never existed in the first place, and gouge out all portions of their brain that control critical thinking because they're too fallible (actually, gouge out the whole thing, because you know, it's that stupid science that tells you where those parts are in the first place).

I just feel that science is far more religeous than other people do. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Then I will tell you, with no ill will or offense intended, that either you do not understand Science, or you do not understand Religion, and I suspect it is the first.