Your right we shouldn't listen to stupid patten clerk that failed math and english classes or some roamming bum who won't stop asking question while people worry about their countries war. I mean if you we're only the son of a basket weaver what hell could you ever hope to accomplish.

Without math there is no science, and if there is a god well I geuss he would be directly related to that as well. History is important without it nothing would be known. You want to know about where the rubber hits the road thats fine. But without questioning and exploring other things science would be at a stand still.

Also if you read my last comment in the OP you would note that a proffessor teaching chaos and fractals handed out this stuff to talk about only we never got to talk about it because some stupid athiest threw a fit about it saying GOD. Even with the professor being a hard core athiest. But I guess he's just an idiot, I mean what has he done besides being one of maybe 5 people crucial to the developement Mojoworld, a Fractal progam that can completely create world, out of math.

I am interested on your thoughts of what is said not who said it.

Incase you didn't get the first paragraph

Albert Einstien
Socrates
Andrew Carnegie

I do enjoy to here descent when it comes with facts, Which is why I asked for your thoughts. but I do not enjoy being insulted back handed or not.

Also I'm not completely convicent he's actualy refering to god and its not a metaphore.

I think you're overreacting a bit Mr. Art History Major.

Sorry I was very angry earlier (computer issues {crashes}).

Why do you think I was Art History Major?

1. No modern scientists would argue that Laws govern the universe - they merely describe the phenomenon that we see. In that regard, there aretimes when old Newtonian views work, and times when Chaos theory is more apt.

2. Technically speaking, I think it was Darwin who started the shift from detrministic thinking to probablistic thinking in scientific fields(the study of mathematical probability didn't really get started until the 17th century, and statistical analysis until later, which may have also been why no one was able to crack genetics before Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century.

3. While causality appears to break down at the subatomic level, it is fallacy to try to apply that to the macro level. For whatever reason, that sort of weirdness breaks down when looking at large objects (one theory I'm familiar suggested that gravity causes the probablity field to collapse, so that at the macro level, reality is more certain).

4. It seems to me you're making... well, mistake would be the wrong word... let's say your approach to the topic appears typical of the humanities major - translating the science into romantic philosophy, and in so doing rushing into generalized statements that the science itself may not support. That said, I have nothing against doing so, as some of our finest SF stories came from artists taking a simple idea and running with it.

5. There is no question that our understanding of the universe is broken. Relativity theory and Quantum mechanics stand at odds with each other. Both work for what we need them to do, but they also contradict each other so they cannot both be true. Either the two ideas are incomplete, or they are wrong and will need to replaced by a more cohesive theory. Until these answers are figured out, scientists will continue to use these models because, as I said, they work, but it would be a mistake to assume that either one, at this point, can be seen as the correct understanding of the universe.

6. Now how do I break it to you that you were always fated to write that essay?

I figured you where but wasn't sure anyways I do not have any Art degrees.