Strange

I am a bit disappointed (but not at all surprised) by the way this thread went. I was more interested in finding out why some religious people are anti-science than why some atheists are anti-religion. After all, the latter has been expressed, with varying degrees of eloquence, on this and other science forums. It seems much harder to get a clear explanation from religious people who are against science. Anyway, carry on. Back to your entrenched positions. Edit: I'll remove that last whimsical comment after reading the last few posts. There have been some interesting points made.

I'll go along with that.

As there is no science that says anything either way about "creation", I can't see how there can be a contradiction. Is sin a genetic trait? That is a bizarre belief. Are you saying that people never do bad things because evolution doesn't allow it? As such things are not detectable and there is no evidence they exist, what does evolution have to do with it? But we are talking about science, not whether you or I agree with their beliefs. I don't care if they believe that; science has nothing to say about it and can have nothing to say about it. Unless you think you have a soul detector? But Christians would not accept that. And science can't show them to be that. Plenty of people do. So I guess you just lack imagination or an understanding of human nature. I assume that would be true of any god. Do you know of any experiments that can be done on gods? I assume you are agreeing with me that gods are outside the scope of science.

As there are is no science that says anything about what created the big bang (or even if such a thing happened) I don't see how anyone's opinions on that - whether Hawking or the Pope - can be said to contradict science. While I find that doctrine bizarre beyond all belief, I can't see how evolution has any connection to it. Evolution says nothing about morality, sin or other abstract human inventions. It seems to me that you are either reading too much into it, or grasping at straws in your desire to attack people's beliefs. Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science? I'm sure that they could come up with all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be tested. (It doesn't happen in the presence of measuring instruments. Or it is like the uncertainty principle: it happens to quickly to be detected. Or ...) I'm not sure why anyone would care.

I am not familiar with the Nicene Creed. And I'm not sure I want to try and explain other peoples beliefs (there are plenty of religious scientists who can do that). Perhaps you can give an example of a mainstream religious belief (e.g. not Creationism) that contradicts science. The Roman Catholic church, for example, has made explicit statements that it accepts modern science and they are consistent with its faith. If one of the more conservative religions is able to say that, who am I to disagree. Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science?

I guess, the title should be made more general: "why do some religious people and some atheists [anti-theists] invent a conflict between belief and science" Repeating yourself doesn't magically make it true, as you seem to believe. (The power of faith?) I'm sure you can list beliefs that are incompatible with reality/science. And I could list beliefs that are not. That would be pretty pointless, I think.

Surely, if a god is compatible with reality then it is compatible with scientific knowledge (which is based on reality). If your god tells you that the Earth is flat then your god is not compatible with science because it is wrong. But if your god tells you her favourite ice cream is stracciatella then can't really be incompatible with science.

I don't see what difference it makes.

I am not convinced of that. For example, there is not really any evidence against a god or gods, they are just irrelevant to science. You can't scientifically prove god doesn't exist.

Very droll.

So what? There is no reason to invent a conflict between them. Science and religion don't really have any connection or grounds for conflict. The things that religion deals with (gods, the supernatural, etc) have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to say about them. Science investigates the natural world and attempts to understand it. Unless your beliefs are contradicted by reality (such as people who believe the Earth is flat) then there should be no reason for conflict between your beliefs and science, because science just explores the real world.

Do you have any evidence that supports this idea?

The challenge with using a publisher is getting them to look at the thing, never mind publishing it! Self publishing is not expensive. There are print on demand services where, I think, the cost comes out of your sales. And ebooks cost nothing to produce. I don't know whatAmazon and others charge for selling them, presumably a fixed fee and/or percentage. But with self-publishing you have to do all your own marketing and publicity. Vanity publishing is the worst of both worlds. You pay them (a lot, frequently) and then they do nothing to promote it. It would be worth him joining one or more writers' forums to get some more specific advice. From what I have read, having a good cover design can make a huge difference - by catching people's eye and giving an impression of quality. When you say "just finished", does that include getting it reviewed by other readers? How many edit/rewrites has he gone through? Several writers' forums have a facility where you can submit work to get reviewed by other members. Scribophile is very good: http://www.scribophile.com/

Ah, silly me. I missed the "multiple of".

163 - 81 = 82 not 6

That is not part of Javascript itself. It is an API implemented by the browser.

So you are complaining about the documentation of run-time environment and/or libraries, rather than the language. I have had no problem finding documentation for these things. I would recommend using something like JQuery (or one of the equivalent libraries) that (a) make these things much simpler than trying to write them from scratch and (b) are very well documented and supported.

It is an international standard (ECMA). As such, it is very well specified and documented.

I am quite happy to admit my lack of expertise in many (all?) areas. I am often corrected by those more knowledgeable than me, an I am grateful for it.

Please explain what you think "popularity" means. I am fascinated to know!

But that has nothing to do with POPULARITY. popularity (n): state of being liked, enjoyed, accepted, or done by a large number of people : the quality or state of being popular http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/popularity What did you think the words means?

It still makes no sense. Apache software is produced by volunteers (which makes it "unofficial" by your definition): http://www.apache.org/ The official version is produced by volunteers. Also, you are permitted to produce your own version of Apache. And you are even permitted to offer it for sale. (As long as you comply with the license terms.) It is no more or less official than any other version. Yours would be the official "Sensei Apache".

This is the "god of the gaps" argument (or "FSM of the gaps" argument ). Just because we don't (yet) have a theory for the earlier state of the universe doesn't mean that anyone can just make up their own explanation(*). "Don't know" is always a valid result in science. (*) Well, obviously, they can. It just isn't science. Related to which, I am always surprised when religious people with an anti-science agenda object to the big bang model. I would have thought they would jump on the pop-sci version as a "creation story" (and highlight that one of the founders of the theory was a Catholic priest).

How is that relevant? Are you saying that only Microsoft software is "official"? Or only non-Microsoft software is "official"? Or either are "official" but you mustn't mix them? (So we can't run open source software on Windows machines?) Your argument makes zero sense.

No it doesn't. A naive extrapolation of GR to scenarios where it may not be valid does that. Which is why no (other than science journalist) does it. There are several models which avoid a singularity entirely. ALL theories are approximations of reality with limited domains of applicability. That is the state at which energies exceed those at which current theories can be applied with confidence.