Originally posted by casino_king:
In a [b]molecule of hydrogen, the three tendencies
of attraction, repulsion and stabilization are completely
eliminated when the molecules are separated by an infinite
distance. The Buddha says in respect of the eternal truth about
"arising of all", they arise due to the threefold desire consisting
of the desire for sensual pleasures (kama thanha)
the desire for existence (bhava thanha) and the desire for
annihilation (vibhava thanha). The parallel to this discovery is
the attraction, repulsion and stabilization of the molecules as
mentioned above.
How anybody can associate sex (desire for sensual
pleasures) with properties of a (molecule of
hydrogen) is totally beyond me.
We can also say that Santa Claus story is scientific because he was
using the quantum theory principle to deliver in one night all the
toys to all the children in the world on Christmas eve.
OMG the Santa Claus story is scientific! 
I advise you not to push this too far or all the people you attract
to Buddhism are a bunch or weak minded people most unsuitable for
the higher objectives of Buddhist practice. It will also turn off
many who know science.
[/b]
this discovery is the attraction, repulsion and stabilization of
the molecules as mentioned above. And, this principle
applies generally to each and every process in the
universe.
Well, Buddhism relies on observation/insight to obtain wisdom. It
is not about accepting a "fact" because it is written or because
someone with great authority reported it. It is also not about
reason. That is, it is not good enough to simply rationalize how a
thing could be true. When one directly experience a thing - only
then does that person know it to be true.
There are three "levels" or "types" of wisdom: suttamaya panna
(wisdom gained from others), cintamaya panna (wisdom gained through
reason/contemplation), and bhavanamaya panna (wisdom gained through
direct experience). However, only bhavanamaya panna is considered
to be truth.
Conventional science is not pure because it relies on a number of
fallible means. I may base my research on another person's
research, who based his on another's, and so on. Things I am
assuming to be "fact" are taken on the authority of others. I do
not know them to be true. I trust that they are, but I have not
directly experienced them, so I do not know.
Buddhism, I consider "pure science" because it still relies on
observations to formulate conclusions, but it does not rely on
external sources. I can read about a thing, or hear about it. If it
seems plausible, I can think about it for a while and see if it
holds up to reasonable scrutiny. At this point, it may seem to be
true, but Buddhism requires an important step - I must test that
thing against reality. I must directly experience it for myself.
Then I will know it to be true.
All of the suttas, dhamma talks, discussion, etc. are all useful
for giving practitioners ideas for where to look for answers, but
Buddhism is supremely about finding those answers out for oneself.
One can have every sutta memorized word for word. However, if one
has not directly experienced the wisdom the suttas point to, one
knows nothing.