EdEarl

Religious opposition to science includes "Creationism," which is well organized and not at all similar to a few fat people against genetics. Creationists occupy positions on School Boards and try to pervert science education in public schools, which eventually leads to court cases that cost taxpayers millions. A better analogy than a fat person is the Quaker community, who oppose modern technology and use older, horse and buggy, technology. Quakers are a minority culture within the world. If Creationists managed to take over a state, the remainder of the world would continue to progress scientifically, and the Creationist culture would be left behind as a minority culture. The progress of science seems to be a powerful movement among humans, and if we develop conscious artificial intelligence, the progress of science seems inevitable.

China has roughly 4x population of the US; many are well educated, and China is investing heavily in science. They do not have a religious right that opposes science, they will quickly advance in science, which affects their military and economy, which will become the most powerful in the world. I know, off topic, and may start a new thread if there are replies.

Religion has slowed the advance of science, for example when Copernicus waited to publish his ideas about heliocentrism until the year of his death; although, he had developed it several decades before. And there were others.

It's my impression there is little to no light in most brains.

Rather than argue whether faith and trust are synonyms, lets examine another quality of faith, the difference between blind faith and skeptical faith. When one has blind faith, the possibility of that person changing their mind is nearly nil. On the other hand, when one has skeptical faith (faith with some doubt) one is prepared to change their mind. Scientists must be willing to change their mind about things; although, they sometimes they are stubborn and wrong, a characteristic of humanity that visits most people at least once in their lifetime. On the other hand, religion is taught as if it were absolute fact, and cannot change...blind faith. A scientist with blind faith will fail to be a scientist if he/she ignores evidence.

Good job studiot, continue.

Electrical current flows in different things differently. Among the easiest to understand is current flowing through a vacuum, for example in a vacuum tube (pre-transistor technology). Electrons flow from the hot cathode to the anode when a potential difference (voltage) is applied across the cathode (-) and anode (+). By convention (tradition) current flow is opposite electron flow in a vacuum tube.

So you think someone just ferments an idea from smoke and beer breath, then if they have enough faith or believe hard enough they can force the math to work and their model will match reality? Science is not done that way. It is more like the following: You are riding in a wagon pulled by an oxen, a horseman passes you at a gallop. You wonder, "How much sooner will that horseman arrive at Ye Olde Inn, ahead?" So, you measure how fast an ox walks, how fast a horse runs, and how far it is to the inn. Then, you try to find an equation that fits your data and is also capable of predicting how much sooner the horse will arrive. Then, you test the equation with various distances and expected arrival times. If your equation works, great; otherwise, try try again. It may be necessary to try, try again hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of times. Occasionally, an accident occurs and is seen as new science.

They're just helping you turn it:) I've got racoons and opossums. Cats take care of the mice. It's possible to exclude little critters.

Compost your scraps rather than putting them in the trash bin.

I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but my impression is that we don't know everything, kind of like knowing your nephew's birthday is on a Wednesday in July, but you don't know the date. So, you look at the calendar and find out there are several Wednesday's in July, without having additional information you are stuck.

No, faith based beliefs are neither necessary nor desirable for the evolution of science. Scientists follow evidence to a rational conclusion.

Population explosion is unlikely to be reduced by sending people to either the Moon or Mars; their environments are not friendly, and Mars is a long way from Earth. As Moontanman said, large rotating habitats in orbit may be a good solution; however, I think we will need a presence on the Moon to mine materials, manufacture habitat modules, and launch them into orbit around the Earth and Moon, because Earth's gravity makes the launch cost higher than the Moon. Since AI and robots are now useful technologies. I think the Moon can be mined and things made by automatons with few people needed. As habitats are completed, people can be moved from Earth into them. Nonetheless, a launch vehicle such as the proposed SoaceX Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT), which can carry 100-200 people, will be needed to move people from Earth to space habitat. Since there are already many people willing and able to move to Mars, there is no reason we shouldn't, given an MCT. Once the exodus from Earth begins, I believe people will continue to move into the solar system, orbiting the Sun in the habitable zone and further out, as long as there is sufficient energy. The moons and asteroids can provide material to build many habitats that become a Dyson swarm.

Scientists do not know why the universe is mathematical, but it is marvelous.

A man has flown a pedal powered ultra-light aircraft. However, I believe growing wings on a human is beyond current technology. Moreover, making a person with wings, feathers, hollow bones, much smaller body, strong wing muscles, and body changes required to make an organism capable of flight could not be a person as we know them.

As a Buddhist, who doesn't believe in your God, or any god, I try hard to be kind to Christians and others, even when a person insults me, such as you have done. I am neither devoid of empathy, ignorant of ethics, nor ignoring ethics. You have cast the first stone, but I shall not return one. However, I would appreciate your taking a long look at your own words above to understand where you crossed the line of good manners. There have been some great Christian scientists, there may be again, and maybe there are a few now. Although, it is possible for anyone to do science, very few scientists make big discoveries. And, there is no way to know who will make a great discovery until it occurs; there is no test that can pick from a field of people who will do great work. Similarly, you cannot choose who among those in the field will become crooks or murderers. BTW crime rates among atheists are low. I reject your idea, because it would slow the progression of science.

One person against science is like a coyote in a blizzard; unless you are standing nearby, you can't hear its howl. Yet, there is some probability that a nearby listener will join the first, and others will follow. However, it seems that the blizzard is taking followers faster than they join, at this point in time.

The significant difference between Flat Earth and Big Bang. About 2 millennium ago, there was little evidence the Earth was round, and many educated men believed in a flat Earth. As additional evidence became known, the consensus of scientists and others changed. The Flat Earthers look around and say the Earth looks flat, let's prove it is flat. Then, they ignore evidence to "prove" their idea. Scientists didn't decide there was a big bang and try to prove it. In fact, the scientist, Hoyle, who coined the term Big Bang, didn't believe in it. The reason Big Bang was accepted is it fits observations, and as more and more scientists tested big bang by observation, the more began to believe it. Now the evidence is compelling and few scientists believe otherwise. That you mentioned both flat Earth and Big Bang as influenced by religion is IMO a fallacy, which might be influenced by religion. I suggest you clear your mind of bias and study the observational evidence; be a Sherlock Holmes.

I mentioned whales, but did not say they were not conscious. In fact, one can argue acacia trees are conscious of overgrazing and react to protect themselves. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361-200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system/

Since WWII wars the US were in have been encouraged by the military industrial complex, with a strong profit motive behind propaganda to incite US citizens. From this prospective, the companies would prefer a no win scenario to extend the length of the war as much as possible; thereby, increasing profits. Considering the amount of trade Vietnam does, the rate they are growing, and the expected increase in per-capita income in the next few years, we might consider that war to be won. I think both communism and democratic-capitalism are failing. China is a one party country, nominally the communist party, but they don't follow Marx doctrine, rather they are capitalist. The USSR no longer exists. Thus, the bastions of communism have fallen. Capitalism is having great success toward reducing marginal cost to zero through automation. One notable company that has failed is AT&T. The name was purchased by Southwestern Bell, but the long distance company AT&T no longer exists, because long distance service is basically free, since it is bundled with your basic phone rates. This trend is accelerating. See:

True, we cannot have a gut feel for such distances and time; even the distance across a continent is too much for me. However, we use mathematics and instruments to observe and describe the Universe.

A rough measure of consciousness may be the distance an entity perceives from itself. An earthworm has a very small or short consciousness, a reef fish has a larger or longer consciousness, a sperm whale can see using sonar for considerable distances, and can probably remember many features of the ocean floor for great distances, and they look above the water and see some dry land. Humans, of course, have the greatest consciousness, many are aware of the size of the Universe. This measure is not precise, and may or may not be useful.

Recent NASA video of Jupiter show it to be really beautiful.

I suspect there are some small percent of the population who are delusional and would hasten climate change; perhaps there are a few hundred among the 300M population of the US. They might believe they would survive.

The world is betting on whether climate change will adversely affect us or not. Climate deniers say the cost of climate change aversion is too much. The other side says, we must act because the potential consequences are human extinction. Humans release about 40 B tons/year. Permafrost, which is melting, could release around 190 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2200. Permafrost contains methane that is 7.5 to 400 billion tons of carbon-equivalent. A few climate scientists believe climate warming will continue to release carbon into the atmosphere from permafrost and the ocean in increasing amounts until almost all life on earth is extinguished, and it will not cool off for centuries. In other words they believe runaway climate change is inevitable and we are already dead men walking. Most climate scientists, I think, believe we have a chance to avoid the worst, but look at the amount of carbon that might be put into the environment, and know the worst is possible. Some people think taking risks is fun. I don't, and I will oppose those who risk my life.