Isn't science supposed to contradict religion?

Vampireskiss

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

Dades

Science isn't supposed to do anything but attempt to increase our understanding the universe. It will inevitably contradict some things claimed true by religions.

Húrin

No.

Well, it depends. Supposed by who? Richard Dawkins might say yes, but that's confirmation bias for you.

No, of course it isn't.

But, if a scientific concept contradicts a religious idea, then, the religious idea should be abandoned.

ZondaChai

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

ZondaChai

ZondaChai wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

Marriage isn't necessarily a religious sacrament anymore - afterall, you don't have to get married in a church; marriage doesn't have to be valid in the eyes of God anymore.

sink

ZondaChai wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

Greatest living atheist?!! Loudest maybe!

challengemaster

ZondaChai wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?, I just found out Richard Dawkins is married, now if the greatest living athiest can undertake a religious sacrament, then perhaps you can all agree to disagree.

Is his wife though? I'm sure that many people may, for their partner, have a wedding / marraige ceremony that suits THEIR beliefs out of love for them.

Also seconded to what JD said.

science [Lat. scientia=knowledge]. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.

I don't see anywhere there stated 'science is to prove religion wrong'. It may happen through scientific experimentation that religious beliefs are found to be false, but its hardly the purpose of science.

ZondaChai

Mabey not the greatest, but if todays athiest's put together a charity football team, he would definetly be on the substitutes bench. Picture it, Pope Ratzinger the star ringer leading the front line for religion, when out of nowhere, the athiests throw on their impact sub, the deadly Dawkins.

eoin5

Religion contradicts religion enough, theres no need to task science with the job.

Zombrex

Vampireskiss wrote: »

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

The purpose of science is to model the universe to discover how things work.

This has lead it, rather by accident, into conflict with religion because long before modern science came about religious people were making claims about the universe and how it worked.

The religious people were just guessing though and, like all human endeavour, ending being wrong a lot of the time.

Not such a big deal in of itself (science is wrong as well most of the time), the mistake the religious people did was proclaiming authority to know this stuff through communion with a higher authority (gods mostly, or spirits, or giants etc etc). So it becomes a bit harder to go "Whoops we got that wrong" when you are invoking an authority that is supposed to be never wrong.

Which leads to conflict.

Religion proclaims something, scientific study comes along and shows that a more accurate explanation contradicts the religious proclamation, the religious people get mad because they made the claim by invoking a higher authority, and now they (of the followers who come after them) look like they don't actually communicate with said higher authority.

When religion bases most of its own authority on the idea that it represents a higher authority, any indication that it is not actually in communion with this higher authority is a threat to its own authority, and as such conflict can and often does arise.

A good example is the Biblical Flood. Of all the Bible stories it is the easiest to pick out as something that simply did not happen. There was no flood that wiped out all humans. There was no flood that wiped out all land animals. Despite this a good number of Christians take the Biblical Flood as an event that is supposed to be taken as a historic event.

And for a good number of Christians this has lead to a conflict between religion and science. Science did not set out to disprove the Flood. Science simply models how things work and worked, such as floods and geology, oil deposits and human biology. In all these fields of studies the Flood does not fit. But then neither does a whole host of other religious stories from around the world that also never happened.

A lot of religious people, Christians Muslims Hindus, don't like this. If the science says these events most likely didn't happen then the science is wrong. They you see, have communication from the higher power. They already know what is true and what isn't true. If they don't actually have communication with the higher power then this has ramifications in their lives that go far beyond the science.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

The purpose of science is to model the universe to discover how things work.

This has lead it, rather by accident, into conflict with religion because long before modern science came about religious people were making claims about the universe and how it worked.

The religious people were just guessing though and, like all human endeavour, ending being wrong a lot of the time.

Religion proclaims something, scientific study comes along and shows that a more accurate explanation contradicts the religious proclamation, the religious people get mad because they made the claim by invoking a higher authority, and now they (of the followers who come after them) look like they don't actually communicate with said higher authority.

A lot of religious people, Christians Muslims Hindus, don't like this. If the science says these events most likely didn't happen then the science is wrong. They you see, have communication from the higher power. They already know what is true and what isn't true. If they don't actually have communication with the higher power then this has ramifications in their lives that go far beyond the science.

I suppose you will get those that argue that religion is anti-science. You also get those who arrgue that the bible should be taken literally.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Most Christians who discuss issues are more interested in moral or philosophical issues.

Science is neutral really as religion should be neutral on science.

Oh the cowboy and the farmer should be friends

stevencarrwork

Vampireskiss wrote: »

There would be little need for faith otherwise which is the whole point?

You need faith that Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared into a cloud on his way to Heaven, because science teaches us that such a journey into the sky would only have got Jesus to Uranus.

MatthewVII

stevencarrwork wrote: »

You need faith that Jesus ascended into the sky and disappeared into a cloud on his way to Heaven, because science teaches us that such a journey into the sky would only have got Jesus to Uranus.

He would of course have died long before he got there due to travelling through the vacuum of space. Would have made for an interesting end to his story - Jesus was raised up to the clouds - and exploded.

Matt Holck

there was an add mocking Monty Python and the Holy Grail
but I can't remember the product

CDfm

MatthewVII wrote: »

He would of course have died long before he got there due to travelling through the vacuum of space. Would have made for an interesting end to his story - Jesus was raised up to the clouds - and exploded.

All that is telling you is that JC was not bound by the laws of Science.

Science is supposed to explain the universe to use and give us the skills and resourses to make the best of it.

Religous stuff is seperate and its about faith and mysteries and the inexplicable.

Science will tell you how to hang a man -religion will debate whether or not its moral.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Religous stuff is seperate and its about faith and mysteries and the inexplicable.

I'll grant you religion's only territory is the inexplicable. A territory that continues to diminish hugely over time.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I'll grant you religion's only territory is the inexplicable. A territory that continues to diminish hugely over time.

I cant see anything incompatable between science and religion.

There are bits like stem cell research that are controvercial but they are small areas and involve moral and philosphical issues that trancend religion anyway.

In the main religion should not be used to restrict science or scientific theory or investigation. A theory may be wrong but it goes to building a body of knowledge and often needs to be investigated to exclude it.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I'll grant you religion's only territory is the inexplicable. A territory that continues to diminish hugely over time.

Thanks God for that.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

Thanks God for that.

And you say the Universe is still expanding

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Science will tell you how to hang a man -religion will debate whether or not its moral.

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

One thing you conspicuously lack: an example. Religion does not make proclamations about general principles of physical reality.

What do you mean by "communicated, physically"? Do you think that God communicated with prophets by post, so there's a paper trail somewhere? (please, nobody say "the Bible" because that was written by divinely-inspired men, not directly by God). There are no physical pretences. God exists outside the universe.

For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is probably as physical as Christianity gets. And yet it has not been disproven despite two thousand years of people trying with various levels of scientific rigour.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is probably as physical as Christianity gets. And yet it has not been disproven despite two thousand years of people trying with various levels of scientific rigour.

Similarly, it has yet to be proven. So which should we accept? I don't see any reason for leaning either way, but logic tells us that it is unlikely to have happened. And so the world keeps spinning.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

Science seeks to explain things and does so based on the sum of the knowledge it has. Many atheist scientists believe science can explain all and are confident they will get answers for everything.

Is it arrogance. I dont know.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Religion does not make proclamations about general principles of physical reality.

Indeed it does -- there are many christians people out there who think that sickness is caused by bad spirits or god's revenge, or that praying for a plane to stay in the air is going to work, or that the world was made in a week around 20,000 years after the domestication of the dog, or (in non-physical reality) that people wanting to do bad things is the fault of a guy with a trident and a forked tail.

There are many more examples.

MatthewVII

CDfm wrote: »

Science seeks to explain things and does so based on the sum of the knowledge it has. Many atheist scientists believe science can explain all and are confident they will get answers for everything.

Is it arrogance. I dont know.

No, scientists who believe that they will eventually explain everything are basing that belief on the evidence that they have already explained a vast number of phenomena which were previously misunderstood. It stands to reason that over time, science will explain more and more. I'm not sure about it explaining everything, but I'm pretty sure it'll explain most of it.

What is arrogant is thinking that one knows best because they believe that a deity has revealed themselves, and to make judgements based on information they believe is fundamentally infallible.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I dont know.

This much is clear

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

One thing you conspicuously lack: an example. Religion does not make proclamations about general principles of physical reality.

Religion makes proclamations all the time about principles of physical reality. God exists is a proclamation about physical reality. He created the universe, Earth and man, is a proclamation about physical reality.

Húrin wrote: »

What do you mean by "communicated, physically"? Do you think that God communicated with prophets by post, so there's a paper trail somewhere?

No I think God communicated audio-visually with men and women, at least according to your holy book. Sound is vibration of air particles at varying frequencies. Light is the vibration of the electromagnetic field at varying frequencies.

As for the Bible God is supposed to have directly written some parts of it, such as the commandments given to Moses.

Húrin wrote: »

There are no physical pretences. God exists outside the universe.

Which is still part of existence.

Húrin wrote: »

For instance, the resurrection of Jesus is probably as physical as Christianity gets. And yet it has not been disproven despite two thousand years of people trying with various levels of scientific rigour.

I think scientists have pretty conclusively demonstrated that people do not come back to life after being crucified :rolleyes:

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Science seeks to explain things and does so based on the sum of the knowledge it has. Many atheist scientists believe science can explain all and are confident they will get answers for everything.

Is it arrogance. I dont know.

Given that without already knowing what "all" is such a statement is some what nonsensical, I would be interested in discussing that assertion with these atheists scientists.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Indeed it does -- there are many christians people out there who think that sickness is caused by bad spirits or god's revenge, or that praying for a plane to stay in the air is going to work, or that the world was made in a week around 20,000 years after the domestication of the dog, or (in non-physical reality) that people wanting to do bad things is the fault of a guy with a trident and a forked tail.

There are many more examples.

Maybe some fundamentalists but they are not mainstream.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe some fundamentalists but they are not mainstream.

Well, let's take another example -- I reckon most or even all christians believe that praying to their deity is going to help cure their illness, improve their chances of winning the lottery, or make their car journey safer.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion makes proclamations all the time about principles of physical reality. God exists is a proclamation about physical reality. He created the universe, Earth and man, is a proclamation about physical reality.

If God's existence was a proclamation about physical reality, then it would be scientifically testable. Since physical reality is only meaningful within the confines of this universe, I don't see how a God who exists outside this universe is supposed to be a physical entity within it.

God's status as creator is not put forth as a law of nature, but as a first cause.

No I think God communicated audio-visually with men and women, at least according to your holy book. Sound is vibration of air particles at varying frequencies. Light is the vibration of the electromagnetic field at varying frequencies.

And most importantly of all, he was incarnated in Israel 2000 years ago. But clearly, none of this is what I meant. These are referred to as miracles. They are not general principles for how nature works.

You say that religion makes claims about such principles, but, where are your examples? Have any of the miracles you have listed been disproven? If they are claims of the nature you say they are, then they ought to be falsifiable.

Which is still part of existence.

You're talking to someone who does not think that physical nature is synonymous with all existence.

I think scientists have pretty conclusively demonstrated that people do not come back to life after being crucified

Scientists didn't do that - the Romans knew it. Otherwise they wouldn't use it as a method of execution. :rolleyes:

But the Christian claim of the resurrection is quite falsifiable, in principle. Yet it has not been disproven.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

But the Christian claim of the resurrection is quite falsifiable, in principle.

How?

Lue 24:50 says that Jesus flew off up into the sky, so if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus did not leave a corpse on earth that one could check to see if he had come back to life, having been dead (assuming one could check that reliably anyway after 2,000 years).

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

If God's existence was a proclamation about physical reality, then it would be scientifically testable.

No, if God's existence was a good proclamation about physical reality it would be scientifically testable.

And that is the whole point.

Religion makes claims about physical reality it has no way of demonstrating in any meaningful way.

Húrin wrote: »

Since physical reality is only meaningful within the confines of this universe

Where did you get that from?

Physical reality is meaningful anywhere there are reality. Inside the universe, outside the universe, under the universe. If God exists then he is part of reality by the virtue of existing.

Húrin wrote: »

God's status as creator is not put forth as a law of nature, but as a first cause.

Ok, not sure what point you think you are demonstrating there, but the fact that religion puts God's status forward at all is the problem.

Húrin wrote: »

And most importantly of all, he was incarnated in Israel 2000 years ago. But clearly, none of this is what I meant. These are referred to as miracles. They are not general principles for how nature works.

They are actually, if they actually happened (which I find highly doubtful). If God exists and manipulates nature, than that is the law of nature. X happens unless God decides it doesn't, in which case Y happens.

No you might very well be think that this makes modeling nature (ie science) rather difficult since we can't model God. And with that we are right back to the problem with religion making proclamations about what God does or is supposed to have done. If you can't model it you can't test it, and you certain can't figure out if it actually happened or not.

So even if God exists religion should really stop proclaiming he does since it would be practically impossible to determine in any meaningful way that he does, or anything about him.

Húrin wrote: »

You say that religion makes claims about such principles, but, where are your examples?

God exists. God created the universe. God spoke to Abraham. God descended to Mount Sinia (sp?) to speak to Moses. Seriously, pick a random page in the Bible and you will probably find some mention of God doing something.

Húrin wrote: »

Have any of the miracles you have listed been disproven?

How do you disprove a miracle? Since a miracle is untestable by virtue of being a miracle (you religious types are quite clever about proclaiming things in such a way that you can't be demonstrated to be wrong) how would one demonstrate that a miracle did not take place?

There is a little thing in science call falsifiability. I am being flippant of course, it is the corner stone of modern scientific enquiry.

If it is not possible to demonstrate, even hypothetically, that an aspect of a scientific model is not accurate, then the scientific model is of little worth

Why you ask? Because if you think something might have happened but you can't possibly demonstrate it didn't, then you have no way to rigorously test it did.

If something happens and some one decides to proclaim it as a miracle then you need a way to test it wasn't a miracle and you need to test that rigorously.

If you can't do that (and you can't with miracles by virtue of the explanations being supernatural) then you have no way of determine that the explanation actually explains the event. Something else could explain the event and you could not tell.

Húrin wrote: »

If they are claims of the nature you say they are, then they ought to be falsifiable.

They ought to be falsifiable, but they aren't, which is why they are bad and largely pointless and should be ignored. They are still claims about nature, just pretty dumb ones that no one can verify.

Húrin wrote: »

You're talking to someone who does not think that physical nature is synonymous with all existence.

Fair enough. Come up with a word or term for "all existence" and I will use that instead of "physical nature"

Húrin wrote: »

But the Christian claim of the resurrection is quite falsifiable, in principle. Yet it has not been disproven.

Please explain how the Christian claim of the resurrection can be falsified.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Well, let's take another example -- I reckon most or even all christians believe that praying to their deity is going to help cure their illness, improve their chances of winning the lottery, or make their car journey safer.

No we dont -but we do believe that prayer can help.

Say if you really pissed me off IRL - praying for you might deal with my anger and stop me beating the living s*** out of you.

But praying isnt about asking for physical things it might be about improving the quality of our lives and accepting stuff.

So prayer can be about anger management.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Please explain how the Christian claim of the resurrection can be falsified.

Find the grave of Jesus. That's one way. I'm sure other ways have been tried by the people so inclined (mainly Muslims and Jews through the ages I imagine).

Wicknight, you really don't understand what I mean by "general principle", do you? One off events are not general principles. The Law of gravity is such a principle. Religions do not make claims about natural laws.

They are actually, if they actually happened (which I find highly doubtful). If God exists and manipulates nature, than that is the law of nature. X happens unless God decides it doesn't, in which case Y happens.

No, your Y signifies a one-off event, not a new natural law to replace the old one.

No you might very well be think that this makes modeling nature (ie science) rather difficult since we can't model God. And with that we are right back to the problem with religion making proclamations about what God does or is supposed to have done. If you can't model it you can't test it, and you certain can't figure out if it actually happened or not.

So even if God exists religion should really stop proclaiming he does since it would be practically impossible to determine in any meaningful way that he does, or anything about him.

So why do you insist that religion offer scientific evidence in support of its claims, when religion itself denies that it is in the business of the scientific method of learning?

Really, your idea that religion is trying to compete with science in the study of nature is just aggressive and obtuse. Few, if any, scientists agree with you. If it was true, there would be an observable conflict between science and religion outside atheist polemics.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

I can't believe I'm the only one to thank this post. Please tell me we're not falling for the non-overlapping magesteria bullshit?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I can't believe I'm the only one to thank this post. Please tell me we're not falling for the non-overlapping magesteria bullshit?

Thats because you were the only person to truly appreciate its comedic value.

I think the overlap with Douglas Adams " Life the Universe and Everything" was just mega.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

....There are no physical pretences. God exists outside the universe...

No god is physical and he exists in your head.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Find the grave of Jesus. That's one way.

Ok, where is the grave of Jesus. Lets dig him up.

Of course we can't, because no one knows where the grave of Jesus is. So that is a dead end.

If it is not possible to falsify something then it isn't falsifiable. And by the way it is up to the person making the claim to figure out a way to falsify it, not everyone else. A scientists would never say "My model predicts that this atom is really 2 atoms with on invisible one, now it is up to the rest of you to figure out how to falisify that model"

Húrin wrote: »

I'm sure other ways have been tried by the people so inclined (mainly Muslims and Jews through the ages I imagine).

And I'm sure the early Christians went to a lot of trouble to imagine a religious event that was impossible to disprove. It is the sign of a cult that knows what they are doing

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight, you really don't understand what I mean by "general principle", do you?

I don't really care what you mean by general principle. It isn't relevant to our discussion and I'm not sure why you introduced it. Science is not about studying reality up to a point, it is about studying reality, one of events included.

Besides, God exists and does stuff is not a one off event. The individual events are once offs, but so is everything else. My egg falling to the floor is a once off, that doesn't mean science has no business trying to figure out why my egg feel to the floor.

Húrin wrote: »

No, your Y signifies a one-off event, not a new natural law to replace the old one.

It is a natural law. If God exists and does stuff that is natural law. The fact that he does it once, or twice, or three times, is irrelevant.

The Big Bang only happened once, and it is certainly part of science.

Húrin wrote: »

So why do you insist that religion offer scientific evidence in support of its claims, when religion itself denies that it is in the business of the scientific method of learning?

Because, as I keep saying, religion makes proclamations about reality and existence.

They, and you, can deny that this has anything to do with science, but that seems more based on ignorance of science than anything else.

It would be like me saying Jesus never existed has nothing to do with Christianity so get off my back. I can keep saying it all I like but there isn't a Christian alive who would agree that it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Húrin wrote: »

If it was true, there would be an observable conflict between science and religion outside atheist polemics.

LOL .. are you claiming there is no observable conflict between science and religion. Really, because you might want to revise that statement before 50 posters here start listing off conflicts between religion and science over that last 4000 years.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, where is the grave of Jesus. Lets dig him up.

Of course we can't, because no one knows where the grave of Jesus is.

We also dont know where Julius Caesars grave is, Charles I or Robert Emmett are buried( or indeed any number of French kings disintered during the French Revolution) but we dont doubt they existed.

What you are looking for is negative proof which you cant have and which you need to close down what you see as a blind alley -scientifically speaking-you want everything nice n'neat.

For you - you need scientific explanations on stuff you cant understand - for you faith doesnt work. Headwrecking is'nt it.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Headwrecking is'nt it.

Science happily accepts that the pursuit of knowledge is endless.

What is headwrecking is people who find a gap in the understanding of a natural occurrence and claim their three-eyed silver monkey riding on a turtle's back is responsible, and there isn't a damned thing science can do to disprove it.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

Science happily accepts that the pursuit of knowledge is endless.

What is headwrecking is people who find a gap in the understanding of a natural occurrence and claim their three-eyed silver monkey riding on a turtle's back is responsible, and there isn't a damned thing science can do to disprove it.

Tell me the secret of man made fire

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Tell me the secret of man made fire

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Quote from the Jungle Book Disney musical

Here this should clear it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Quote from the Jungle Book Disney musical

Here this should clear it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I am always sceptical on how religion actually affects science.

Other then stem cell research I cant think of any real topic of division with mainstream Christian Churches.

Other areas such as abortion spill over lots of areas and are a general society issue that are not specific religious based.

Dave!

CDfm wrote: »

I am always sceptical on how religion actually affects science.

Other then stem cell research I cant think of any real topic of division with mainstream Christian Churches.

Other areas such as abortion spill over lots of areas and are a general society issue that are not specific religious based.

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

CDfm

Dave! wrote: »

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

But Dave! it doesn't hold up any scientific studies or interfere with them in any way. So its neutral.

What I am saying what are the issues in science that religion interferes with.

Are these issues exclusive to religion or are they shared by society at large -thats all?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

it doesn't hold up any scientific studies or interfere with them in any way. So its neutral.

Are you seriously saying that the instantaneous, energy-free atomic transformation of carbohydrate into protein is not a physical process?

Or are you having a laugh?

MrPudding

Dave! wrote: »

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

That is not quite accurate, bread & wine change into flesh and blood whilst giving the outward appearance of not having changed at all. It is actually even more magical than you said.

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that the instantaneous, energy-free atomic transformation of carbohydrate into protein is not a physical process?

It is not a physical process, it is a magical process. Obviously.

MrP