These are two separate topics of discussion that are, at some point, going to be reconciled with one another. Obviously there are deficencies in the theories, as both do exist; science has a plan to research both and explain how they co-exist. The end goal will be to further understand the reality we live in. As it stands neither theory has to validate the other and it is entirely possible that the anomalies of quantum mechanics are the chaos upon which general relativity exists, demonstrated by a mathematical formula that has more letters and odd symbols than numbers.
In short, general relativity and quantum mechanics may not have to validate each other, but the fact is that they cannot coexist in their present iterations. More specifically, in their attempts to explain black holes and the Big Bang, both theories/models break down.
Also, I realize that physicists are working on a theory that would unify the two so that hopefully we do have a more complete understanding of the natural world. Unfortunately, the current explanation (as offered by string theory) cannot be empirically proven (at least with existing technology), and that, in the pursuit of this unified theory, scientists arrived at five distinct, different theories, all mathematically consistent. Lastly, the theory relies on the assumption that there are around 9 or 10 spatial dimensions, which may be so tiny that we cannot currently measure them or they may be so huge that they are larger than our galaxy. So, I am not sure why, in its current state, this qualifies as sound logic. I'm not saying it is incorrect, I am just suggesting that it is still imcomplete.
EDIT: Again, my point is that even our current scientific theories must be taken on faith, at least to a certain degree. History is littered with science that we once found compelling but was later found to be wrong. At this point, I would argue that a reasonable, rational person could either believe in 9-10 spatial dimensions (plus time), some type of Higher Being, or some combination of the two.
Originally posted by CorajudoAgain, my point is that even our current scientific theories must be taken on faith, at least to a certain degree.
For the purposes of this thread and the statements you made above, that's a dubious argument.
Faith is defined as "(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust." Science is defined as "1: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."
The faith of religion and the faith of science aren't the same thing, as the cornerstone of science is proof. Faith only comes into play in science when a theory, like evolution, hasn't been fully proven to be true, but is the fundamental base for other working sciences, such as biology.
History is littered with science that we once found compelling but was later found to be wrong.
We heard about some of those in the Politics folder recently. Examples of discredited pseudo-science prove the point that faith of science is fleeting, as truth is always searched out.
At this point, I would argue that a reasonable, rational person could either believe in 9-10 spatial dimensions (plus time), some type of Higher Being, or some combination of the two.
The majority of people who would counter that argument tend to be Creationists of one stripe or another. There are a few atheists who cling to Evolution as an explanation for life that discounts the existence, but science is neither pro-God or anti-God, and ignorance of that isn't a legitimate point of debate.
This is turning into a PM, so I'll be brief. First off, I apologize for taking this off topic. I am not condemning or questioning evolution. I was only referring to the fact that quantum mechanics and general relativity are contradictory and that the current scientific theories about black holes and the Big Bang are only theories and are not necessarily truth. We have not proven them yet, so to the extent that someone accepts/believes these theories, then that is through faith (see definition 1 of faith posted above). I also don't agree with your definition of religious faith, but I have already hijacked this thread enough, and I wouldn't delve into that on a public message board anyhow.
Again, my reference to to 'current scientific theories' (as quoted in rockstar's post) is only referring to the foundational framework of quantum mechanics and general relativity and not to evolution. Sloppy wording and poor form on my part. Mea culpa.
Thanks for the breakdown of my post, papercuts. Brilliant as always. As for the DKR series, I did some surfing online ot see what I could find and they were just as in the dark about it on their board as I was.