God is disproven by science? Really?

[Subduction Zone]

There isn’t enough faith available to believe the Big Bang or Abiogenesis. Nor the twisted version of evolution.

Whew! I guess that we are lucky then that we do not use faith when it comes to the sciences. We use evidence. Evidence beats the pants off of faith.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well as I point out the existence of genes that cause cancer cells in humans, including children, suggests there is no intelligence in biology. I notice you offer no explanation for why cancer cells exist in some children, and when they do how they could be intelligently designed. You have no answer. And in science you have to answer these kinds of serious challenges to your proposition. It's one thing to have anomalies in the data, it happens. But cancer cells are not an anomaly, they are quite common, and deadly.

What kind of cells have scientists been able to replicate starting at the abiogenesis stage? Any intelligent life forms or just amino acids that couldn’t develop any further. Or scientists can make viruses more deadly, is that it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There isn’t enough faith available to believe the Big Bang or Abiogenesis. Nor the twisted version of evolution.

There is no use for faith in science. Only evidence.

We have evidence for Big Bang in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation and Doppler red-shifts.
There are mountains of evidence spanning over a century from multiple groups of independent scientists across the world across multiple independent fields of science that support the theory of evolution and no evidence against it, to date. That's despite creationists and people like yourself constantly looking for evidence against it.

There is no use for faith in science. Only evidence.
Stop trying to drag science down to the level of religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What kind of cells have scientists been able to replicate starting at the abiogenesis stage? Any intelligent life forms or just amino acids that couldn’t develop any further. Or scientists can make viruses more deadly, is that it?

Why couldn't life have developed any further? What is your evidence for that claim?

And since abiogenesis was a process that took a LONG time by human standards we will not be able to repeat the whole thing. At least that is rather unlikely. What we can answer is How did nucleic acids form? How was the handedness problem solved? What was the first cell wall like? And what was the most probable first genetic matter? There are still serious problems to be answered. But to assume that there are no answers at all is rather silly to put it mildly.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There is no use for faith in science. Only evidence.

We have evidence for Big Bang in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation and Doppler red-shifts.
There are mountains of evidence spanning over a century from multiple groups of independent scientists across the world across multiple independent fields of science that support the theory of evolution and no evidence against it, to date. That's despite creationists and people like yourself constantly looking for evidence against it.

There is no use for faith in science. Only evidence.
Stop trying to drag science down to the level of religion.

You call your version of faith a theory.
My faith that God created the heavens and the earth is based off what He wrote in Genesis compared to the reality of life see and live currently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You call your version of faith a theory

No. Theories have to be well supported by evidence. You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You call your version of faith a theory

Nope. As just demonstrated, there is no place for faith in science.
Faith is useless to me, so I do not employ it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Nope. As just demonstrated, there is no place for faith in science.
Faith is useless to me, so I do not employ it.

I do because faith means trust. When I say I have faith in God it means I trust God will accomplish what He said. He has done that so far.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do because faith means trust. When I say I have faith in God it means I trust God will accomplish what He said. He has done that so far.

You have no way of demonstrating this to others, as we've seen in this thread.

Science, on the other hand, can demonstrate all of its claims. In fact, it must.

That's the difference between science and religion.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You have no way of demonstrating this to others, as we've seen in this thread.

Science, on the other hand, can demonstrate all of its claims. In fact, it must.

That's the difference between science and religion.

Science cannot demonstrate all its claims otherwise it would never be wrong.
When you say faith has no place in science then that only means you don’t trust science. Faith = Trust

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science cannot demonstrate all its claims otherwise it would never be wrong.

You know how previously accepted science becomes corrected or overturned?
With EVIDENCE.
Faith never comes into play. Ever.

When you say faith has no place in science then that only means you don’t trust science. Faith = Trust

No it doesn't. That doesn't make any sense. You're just equivocating again.

I have no use for faith, in the religious sense of the word. I've already given my definition numerous times now, and explained why faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. Anything can be believed on faith, which means it's not a useful tool for discerning fact from fiction. Science doesn't have any need for faith and science is a useful tool for discerning fact from fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

N

I do because faith means trust. When I say I have faith in God it means I trust God will accomplish what He said. He has done that so far.

That is one definition, but not the one you were using. Faith is the excuse people use when they do not have any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science cannot demonstrate all its claims otherwise it would never be wrong.
When you say faith has no place in science then that only means you don’t trust science. Faith = Trust

No. If someone cannot demonstrate their claims they are effectively refuted in the sciences. When one makes a claim it is imperative that one supports it in the sciences.

Science is the opposite of faith. That is why it works so well. Faith does not equal trust.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You know how previously accepted science becomes corrected or overturned?
With EVIDENCE.
Faith never comes into play. Ever.


No it doesn't. That doesn't make any sense. You're just equivocating again.

I have no use for faith, in the religious sense of the word. I've already given my definition numerous times now, and explained why faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. Anything can be believed on faith, which means it's not a useful tool for discerning fact from fiction. Science doesn't have any need for faith and science is a useful tool for discerning fact from fiction.

Faith = Trust, that’s the meaning. You can make up other definitions all day long but you’re just in denial of the truth. Sorry to break it to you, should bring you some renewed hope I would think.

 

[millerdog]

I feel the opposite. Science leads to God. As we learn more about how intricate and complex things are it becomes too much for pure coincidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith = Trust, that’s the meaning. You can make up other definitions all day long but you’re just in denial of the truth. Sorry to break it to you, should bring you some renewed hope I would think.

Sorry, but even you are not using that word that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel the opposite. Science leads to God. As we learn more about how intricate and complex things are it becomes too much for pure coincidence.

Sorry, that is an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Faith = Trust, that’s the meaning. You can make up other definitions all day long but you’re just in denial of the truth. Sorry to break it to you, should bring you some renewed hope I would think.

You have used the word "faith" to mean exactly what I've said it is, over and over in this very thread. In fact, we are currently, right now, going down this path specifically because you invoked faith when evidence was requested from you.

You've perfectly demonstrated my definition of faith to everyone in this thread, which was, faith is the excuse people give for believing when they don't have good evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence. Anything can be believed on faith, and so it is not a reliable pathway to truth.


If you want some dictionary definitions ....

Definition of faith

1a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY; lost faith in the company's president
b(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions acted in good faith
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof; clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction, especially : a system of religious beliefs; the Protestant faith
Definition of FAITH

These are incompatible with the scientific method.

Your assertion that faith = trust, is a false equivocation on your part. And an attempt to drag science down to the level of religion. I've seen it a thousand times before.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I feel the opposite. Science leads to God. As we learn more about how intricate and complex things are it becomes too much for pure coincidence.

How? Where? Why?

 

[F1fan]

here isn’t enough faith available to believe the Big Bang or Abiogenesis. Nor the twisted version of evolution.

This is an example of how Christian extremism negatively affects those influenced by religion.

What kind of cells have scientists been able to replicate starting at the abiogenesis stage?

Abiogenesis is a plausible and natural phenomenon that has some level of success in experimentation with the Urey-Miller test. Otherwise your question has no relevance to what science has shown to be true about evolution.

Any intelligent life forms or just amino acids that couldn’t develop any further. Or scientists can make viruses more deadly, is that it?

Science reports it's findings as it progresses over time. The bias by Christian extremists is irrelevant. The disinformation by creationists is irrelevant.