EDIT: Sorry about starting a discussion here. I will use the right forum. You may also move the entire thread to another location is you want.
In response to Madelaine:
You mention three topics ("Quarks", "neutrinos" and the "primordial cell" as examples of how science can be 'making up' stuff or searches for far fetched ideas to support their theories. If that is what you are saying, listen to this:
Scientists don't just 'think up' things. They deduct it from earlier finds. Theories are not facts, they are works in progress. Theories are constantly tested. As soon as a flaw is detected, the theory will be altered to include this new information. This will lead to a more accurate description of the process the theory describes.
When it comes to relatively new discoveries, like quantum mechanics, which deal with almost infinitely small particles, it becomes more difficult to test the theories. NOTE: when talking about stuff that has never been proven, like quarks, black matter, etc. it is always said that these are HYPOTHETICAL particles. They fit in with the description (theory) now, but as we discover more about quantum mechanics, this theory WILL be corrected if necessary. Quite often, deduction is correct. Some planets in our own solar system have been 'predicted' by science without having been seen (at the time), by observing how gravity of the unseen planet affects that of visible ones.
Both science and religion try to explain the world around us. The big difference is that scientists correct their models when they encounter inaccuraties. Religion however keeps believing that what was written, is true, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is offered. There are even christians that refuse to believe that the world is round! Others can completely ignore fossils and claim that the world is a mere 6000 years old.
In response to Alpha:
I concur whit what you wrote about quoting small parts from a larger text. I shall respond to your text by treating it as a whole, as good I can.
You first part is about what happens when we die. I think that a topic like that deserves its own thread.
After the second quote, we're back on the topic about science and religion.
In short, what you are saying is this: Believing in an unproved theory requires one to have faith, and believing in a god requires one to have faith. The difference between scientific faith and religious faith is that the first is inspired by earlier, TANGIBLE evidence and the latter not, in my opinion.
You mention that there IS evidence that god exists, and you say this:
Alpha wrote:(prophetic evidence, manuscript evidence, historical evidence, the light of creation, and the light of conscience)
I think you need to explain these things first, because I do not see how these 6 phrases are evidence. (For example: What is the historical evidence you're talking about, or why should the existence of the world, or life, be evidence of a god?)
If you can convince me that there IS tangible evidence of a god, than you might make a believer out of me yet. You are right, faith needs to be inspired by something. When Darwin saw that finches on an archipelago all had adapted to their own island, but also noticed that they must all have had a common ancestor he was inspired to write his 'Origin of species,' and devised his theory of evolution.
I'd be more than happy to direct my 'faith' to searching for a god, but I need to see some evidence to inspire me first. So please elaborate on the quote and show me a finch.