WHAT IS A THEORY? The differences between a Scientific and Religious Theory are many.

Being someone who is interested in both science and religion, and almost desperately would like to believe in some form of afterlife, reincarnation, or just that someone out there was looking after me, I would hope this isn't taken as an attack on religion itself, but those of too simple mind to think and explore for themselves. In a way I guess there is an afterlife, as no energy can be created or destroyed, it just changes form. So there is life Jim, but not as we know it. A scientific theory; is based on observable facts and laws but at this time cannot be wholly proven. A theory is consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. A theory cannot be proved any more than it already has with current technology, it can only be proven wrong by experiment. For example the theory of gravity; is something we all accept to be true. We can see the effects on a daily basis, people walking around, things falling off the side and hitting the ground, the amount of power that goes into a plane or a bird in flight. we cannot actually see the gravity with our eyes, in the same way we cannot see the wind blowing, but we can see the effects and know that it is there. There are laws to explain this, and when tested get the same result. We can observe in space there is no gravity, and on the moon there is less gravity. I'm not going to bore you with the physics of things like terminal velocity, but if you are interested I suggest you research it further.

Religious theory's; are usually based around what some holy book said thousands of years ago written by people who had no concept of science in the way we do today. In fact you could break it down into Science and Pseudoscience

Let's take dinosaurs. Through carbon dating, fossilised layers, studying tectonic movement we can see that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. A certain type of religious person would say that they lived around 6000 years ago when humans first came to the planet because God created humans and animals on the same day, as says genesis. There is no proof of this, no science to back it up, yet it is said that science is wrong.

Genesis even gets things confused GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Or lets look at the order of creation in general: Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition: Day 1: Sky, Earth, light Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!) Day 3: Plants Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids) Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.) Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time) Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did) Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good." The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes: Earth and heavens (misty) Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) Plants Animals Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib) How orderly were things created? #1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days." #2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things) How satisfied with creation was he? #1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh

day, evidently very satisfied. #2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

Let's take another popular debate: Evolution. One of the biggest arguments against the Theory of Evolution vs the Theory of Gravity is that gravity is observable where evolution isn't. It doesn't matter there is no observable proof that the world is 6000 years old or that god even exists (other than some ancient book which could quite easily have just been a story book of morals like Aesops Fables) - they would argue that the world is observable proof, but the observable proof of the world is the layers, fossil records, tectonic plates, millions of years of existence and where this does not negate the possibility of God, the religious theory of God creating the world and the world being only 6000 years old is not observable in the slightest. Next they will say the soul: will let me see your soul please? If I slice you open will I see it? Not even under a microscope? Oh you feel it? So if you feel something it makes it true? Evolution can be seen with every birth. Each person is an evolution of their parents if they were not they would be exactly the same. In fact testing has proved that the human race is getting about 3% more intelligent with every generation, which is why testing, such as GCSE and A level exams are getting harder and harder. Some accept Micro-Evolution, but often don't believe it can create a change from species to another species even over time. If there is another species it did not evolve over time it was created that way. They don't accept macro-evolution or mutation at all. Not every evolution works well - let's take a condition I suffer with. Asthma. Asthma is a condition which in layman's terms makes it hard to breath. This is a mutation that evolved as a defense mechanism to pollution and is almost unheard of in areas which are less industrial. By that I mean factories, cars, cities etc. If it was not for medicine I would not be alive - survival of the fittest doesn't apply to our "advanced" civilization in the way that it used to. Now my children may develop this condition or they may be lucky not to. They may be short like me or they might inherit a taller gene from my wifes family or even my grandmother. I'm quite bright and relatively muscular (although in recent years have got a little fat) but we can see how my youngest has the same broad shoulders as me and is quite athletic as i used to be. We can see more examples of evolution through fossil records, genomes, DNA, etc. There are no "transitional" fossils, because all fossils are transitional. We can see

dinosaurs that started to develop feathers, and even wings. Your religious types might argue that they are their own species with no thought into where they lie in the fossil record, and why? Because all species were created on the same day. How do they know this? Bible said so. Why are there no Dinosaurs today? - The flood they say. The flood that there is no proof of ever happening. The flood that wiped out all human life other the Noah's family, and we all were begat of him. We know that the closer you are related the more issues there are, you can get some pretty deformed/stupid humans from sibling children... so why did this not happen? Let me guess... because God stepped in? The same god that no longer plays part in our world, that allowed things to continue as they are and does not get involved. He USED to get involved all the time, but now no one hears from him? Does he not care for us any more, or did he never actually get involved in the first place? And why the obsession with a male God? I think I am digressing from my point so to get back on track, we can see that your religious theory's are based on a scientifically inaccurate scripture written thousands of years ago, about people we have no proof existed, no evidence to back up their claims... other than said book, and essentially it comes down to the fact that they have no real explanation so they make something up. It is make believe, like a child with an imaginary friend that can fly. A scientific theory is based on observable facts and laws, tested thoroughly, but there are sometimes factors we don't know. Science is never afraid to say it doesn't know the whole answer whereas religious folks always know the answer, the answer is GOD. Does god exist? I really don't know. If he/she/it does then I doubt it is in any form that we can conceive as humans. I don't presume to know what God would want, and if God wanted something from me, if all powerful, would find a way to tell me. I understand the bible is supposed to be the literal word of god, god is supposed to be infallible, and if one thing is wrong in the bible it throws the whole belief system into chaos, because if one thing is wrong, then maybe another thing is. The bible DOES contradict itself, it does have facts wrong, and it does say things like it is okay sell your sister, or stone a child for being disobedient, but you get these standard responses:

"That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining,

especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want... "There was more there than...."

This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b" which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green Martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining that they don't mind adding to verses. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you? "There was just a copying/writing/translation error."

This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong. The most annoying thing about this is I have said that the bible cannot be the literal word of god, things have been changed by man, it was written by uneducated people (at least by todays standings) it has contradictions etc. Not to mention most of these stories were told WORD OF MOUTH Just consider how expensive paper would have been back then, and with no printing presses it would have all been hand written. The earliest writing found was on stone tablets circa 3500BC and they were pictograms Paper wasnt invented till 150 AD prior to this things would have been written down on stone, bamboo, or if they were rich maybe silk. I get told that there are no contradictions (even when I point them out) and that God would not let his work be altered to suit mans will. (even though God has given us free will and free will is often the excuse Christians give for other things, and they say things get lost in translation but the bible is the literal word of god??? Surely thats a contradiction in itself?)

"That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said. It relates to the time This infers that the bible is old and dated and a new new-testament is needed.

Most Christians choose to IGNORE science because it throws their faith into question. They skirt around contradictions or make the excuses above. Below are some contradictions found in the Bible. Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. Who was at the empty tomb? MAT 28:1 In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Is Jesus Equal to or lesser than God? JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. The number of beasts in the Ark? GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. How many stalls and horsemen? 1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. 2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Believe me there are many more. Does this mean God does not exist? Of course not. But the bible cannot be the literal word of God as god is depicted by Christians, and therefore any of the pseudoscience creationist/religious theories based from this text and any other with obvious inaccuracies and contradictions most surely cannot be taken seriously. Scientific Theory is as near to fact as anyone can get to fact with our current technology. Religious Theory, at best, is philosophy but mostly is an uneducated explanation of how the holy book relates to todays world. Science is not there to disprove God, it is there to explore the universe, to answer what we do not know... if it proved or disproves god it will say so, its just right now there is no real discernable proof of Gods existence, and science has proved parts of the various holy texts wrong. The holy texts are good teaching tools for people, from a moral aspect at least. I think most religions just want us to be nice to each other and teach us how to live good healthy lives, to look after ourselves and our neighbors as we would want to be looked after ourselves. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Everything after that just seems to cause problems.