Science IS religion

[Darkstorn]

We get it, anything that disagrees with your religion of being related to cockroaches and having all the galaxies spring forth from a small hot soup is 'last thursdayism' or spagetti monsterism.

No, only what you're saying. You're literally advocating the idea that we'll never know anything, but your interpretation of a book, because you interpret your god to be a deceiver who plants evidence for non-believers to trip on. That is your argument.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

What a silly claim. Since no one has ever observed the earth actually revolving around the sun, does this mean that you think that the theory that the Earth orbits the sun is merely a 'belief' that people have without good reason?

 

[Darkstorn]

What a silly claim. Since no one has ever observed the earth actually revolving around the sun, does this mean that you think that the theory that the Earth orbits the sun is merely a 'belief' that people have without good reason?

I've seen him answer to that very same question before. You'll be disappointed. Or not depending on what you're expecting.

It really does all boil down to this: We can't REALLY know anything. So we should listen to him.

I'm being very literal with my usage of "anything."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As much as individual roaches disgust me, whenever I encounter one in an unexpected way?

I have always admired how well adapted they are.

A number of years back, I read most of a book which chronicled several species' success, that have "hooked a ride" on the "human train of existence".

The lowly potato, which prior to humans domesticating this plucky plant, was rather uncommon. But by happenstance, this thing's "storage shelter for the winter" happens to contain nearly a complete balanced nutrient mix, for humans (if you eat the skin-- important trace elements in there).

The marijuana plant is another. Again, seemingly by happy accident, it has two things going for it-- a very fibrous stem, which is quite useful to humans for making textiles, and one of it's principle chemicals is so similar to a behavioral hormone humans produce in their own brains, that it can substitute for that same chemical. It has been a quite successful partnership, just going by the numbers.

The dog, and that's pretty obvious.

And finally? The cockroach--which has evolved a wee bit, to really thrive among human garbage. Just going by the total numbers, it's been estimated there are at least several hundred roaches per person on earth. At least. Roaches do not seem to be bothered by human destruction of other species' habitat, having moved right into our cities and towns, literally right under our feet. Only Rattus Rattus, is doing as well among humans, but only coming in a distant second place.

There were several more, but those were the most fascinating to me, and thus, the ones I remember best.

It is interesting that you make these connections. Interesting to me in this context, because I was thinking of the same thing when I responded to you. We have a number of associated species that, either by our own intent or by accident, have found great success at being our associates. Starlings, English sparrows, squirrels, cattle, hogs, corn, soybeans, certain bacteria, and a small cadre of other living things have all found success in associating with people in some way and for various reasons. Even some of the associates of those species are benefiting from the relationship with people.

Here in Missouri, being a deer would seem to be detrimental with the popularity of hunting, but when you view deer at the population level, our conservation department has successfully restored deer populations and at levels that exceed pre-settlement estimates.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I've seen him answer to that very same question before. You'll be disappointed. Or not depending on what you're expecting.

It really does all boil down to this: We can't REALLY know anything. So we should listen to him.

I'm being very literal with my usage of "anything."

I've seen enough of his posts to not have high expectations.

 

[Darkstorn]

I've seen enough of his posts to not have high expectations.

Yeah. It's a classic last thursdayist. Of course he doesn't know what it means which makes it slightly more hilarious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was in a fanciful mood, today. Feeling good, after a really nice lunch of some of the best dinosaur meat I've had in quite some time! At least a couple of weeks-- the eatery was off during the week of the 4th, vacations.

Mmmmmm.... I had it boneless, deep fried, with some home made french fries on the side. And? White Gravy.

I love, love boneless deep-fried dinosaur parts with some Southern White Gravy on the side.

And tea. Iced, of course, as it's Summertime in the City. Since it was also breakfast for me? (being my day off) I put in two packets of sugar-- unusual for me, but there was about 20 ounces of tea/ice, so there was just the barest hint of sweetness. And sugar, being a polar ionic compound? Went into that mostly water solution quite nicely-- two level teaspoons I think is the English Measure. A few grams, at most.

Damn. Writing that up, just now? Was kind of like re-living the meal.

mmmmmm..... warm, dead dinosaur parts....





* edit. I was told it was dead dinosaur, but to be sure, I never saw the feathers, and I never heard it cluck. So I may have been lied to... but I've been assured it was a direct descendant of the venerable T-Rex of some note.

I have not eaten yet and now that is all I am thinking about.

Deep fried dinosaur descendant and tea. Two other species that have succeeded by association to mankind. Not that I think that is end of the story or anything. Just a fact.

Yes. I am really thinking about food now.

 

[siti]

How does it feel being relatives with cockroaches?

I'm OK with that - having relatives who are staunch creationists on the other hand...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've seen him answer to that very same question before. You'll be disappointed. Or not depending on what you're expecting.

It really does all boil down to this: We can't REALLY know anything. So we should listen to him.

I'm being very literal with my usage of "anything."

That is the same destination that I see this going to. It all boils down to a claim that we cannot know anything so follow a specific creationists personal views by default.

 

[Audie]

Yeah. It's a classic last thursdayist. Of course he doesn't know what it means which makes it slightly more hilarious.

And did he try "due diligence" and look it up?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that science is based on evidence, but I can't take it seriously if it's based on theory. Science can come up with a theory, sure, it has to start somewhere. But for it to be credible, it needs to be proved, otherwise it will continue a theory, and not a fact.

In science, we begin with a hypothesis. After it has been tested, independently tested, scrutinized and peer reviewed, and only after it has been to found to be true and accurate does the hypothesis become a theory. Such as, there is no questioning or doubting the theory of gravity, germ theory, the theory of magnetic, or the theory of the combustibility of oxygen.

 

[siti]

But that was a good reply that actually seemed to try to address the issues.

What a pity you missed the point of it...which was...if flatworms and humans do not share an evolutionary ancestor - albeit a very, very long time ago - how come they do share certain biological traits - like - for example, producing the same enzymes for the same energy production processes and the same genetic coding that triggers that enzyme production...?

Was God a bit of a lazy intelligent designer? Or perhaps he just couldn't think of different ways to produce different enzymes in different creatures?

The biochemical processes that keeps flatworms alive are so remarkably similar to the processes that keeps humans alive - why?

The human body plan is so remarkably similar to that of a fish - why? The recurrent laryngeal nerve follows the same track around the aorta in fish, humans and giraffes - even though for the giraffe that means a 15 foot detour from the most direct and efficient route - why?

If God specifically created humans as the pièce de résistance and crowning glory of his creative works on the sixth day - why did he make it look exactly like he'd used bits and bobs he had left over from the lower creatures he'd made earlier in the day?

The enzyme I mentioned earlier - and the genetic code that triggers its production - and the fact that we are prone to diseases that afflict horses, pigs, cattle, monkeys, chickens...etc. that require us to search for effective vaccines...these are but two very obvious indications that we are indeed related biologically to other species - other mammals, birds - and yes even flatworms and cockroaches ...we are all related - its just more obvious in some cases.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And did he try "due diligence" and look it up?

I am not seeing the attributes of scholarship and diligence in the posts that have been offered so far in support of the opening claim. There seem to be a number of other positive attributes missing from support of the opening claim as well.

 

[Valjean]

I've seen him answer to that very same question before. You'll be disappointed. Or not depending on what you're expecting.

It really does all boil down to this: We can't REALLY know anything. So we should listen to him.

I'm being very literal with my usage of "anything."

Listen to whom?

My belief set also accepts the wonderful adaptation and creatures God made. Nothing about them requires an evo religion. Really.

There is no evo religion. The ToE is a reasonable, evidence based conclusion. It's an explanation of mechanism, not an assertion of agency.

Goddidit, on the other hand, does require a leap of faith, since there is no supporting evidence like we have for evolution. Nor does it actually explain anything.

Since the mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to explain the Earth's diversity, this notion of God is extraneous. It's an extraordinary claim and bears the burden of proof.
The ToE makes no extraordinary claims.

 

[Valjean]

people do not usually run from spam lists.The cowardliness lies in failing to produce any point from the list to debate. Hide all you like.

Calling something spam doesn't make it so. You're ducking evidence.

 

[Unguru]

Because I have no valid / rational reasons to be a theist.

Do you believe in yourself?

Ok. No idea why, but ok. I guess.
Obviously what stuff reminds you of, is not under my control.

Well you guys are almost indiscernible from Christians

 

[Unguru]

"Belief" is what you do with claims that don't have evidence.
Claims that have evidence, only require accepting the evidence.

What kinds of examples?

 

[dad]

DNA.

Great...what about it exactly?

 

[dad]

No, only what you're saying. You're literally advocating the idea that we'll never know anything, but your interpretation of a book, because you interpret your god to be a deceiver who plants evidence for non-believers to trip on. That is your argument.

Nothing like that. The deception is inside your belief set and religion. The tripping mechanism is only the beliefs your methodology imposes and foists on to the various things we see.

 

[dad]

What a silly claim. Since no one has ever observed the earth actually revolving around the sun, does this mean that you think that the theory that the Earth orbits the sun is merely a 'belief' that people have without good reason?

Man has observed the movement of earth and the planets actually. Don't try to use that as a mommy's dress cover to hide under!