Science IS religion

[dad]

I'm OK with that - ..

Yes, staunch believers in godless evilution are fine with accepting bugs as true kin. They are fine with accepting and worshiping...about anything so called science wants to shovel out. No news there.

 

[Valjean]

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.

What do science and religion have in common, then? They seem to me to be polar opposites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, staunch believers in godless evilution are fine with accepting bugs as true kin. They are fine with accepting and worshiping...about anything so called science wants to shovel out. No news there.

I see that you are still having a problem with the difference between knowing and believing. We know. You believe. If you wanted to learn there are plenty of people that will help you here. You don't have to ask me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do science and religion have in common, then? They seem to me to be polar opposites.

They are both means to understand the world around us. Science provides us with knowledge and religion, wisely used, can help guide us in how that knowledge is applied. I am not asserting these are perfect systems and that they are flawlessly and correctly executed.

 

[Darkstorn]

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.

You don't actually know my beliefs or methodology, you're just dodging.

But nice job actually addressing the content of my post. You're literally advocating for the idea of a deceptive god who makes things appear different than they are to... I don't know, i guess to single them out for easy forum ownage? This the way you saw it?

I wouldn't be surprised.

godless evilution

Hey, you're the one advocating for a deceiver god who tricks people. Of course evil cannot see evil.

 

[Valjean]

Do you believe in yourself?

What does that have to do with a belief in God?

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!

Man's been observing them for millennia. It's only recently, with scientific observation, that we've finally discovered what's really going on.

Yes, staunch believers in godless evilution are fine with accepting bugs as true kin. They are fine with accepting and worshiping...about anything so called science wants to shovel out. No news there.

Is there something wrong with accepting bugs as kin? Are you offering an argument from personal incredulity? Does ickyness really promote your case?

Worshiping? How are godless evolutionists worshiping anything.
We believe in evolution not because it's comfortable, or traditional, or popular. We believe because there is overwhelming supporting evidence from numerous independent disciplines, and, of course, because there is no other explanation anywhere.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes, staunch believers in godless evilution are fine with accepting bugs as true kin. They are fine with accepting and worshiping...about anything so called science wants to shovel out. No news there.

Why are you projecting this hard? Replace "godless evilution" with "the bible" and "anything so called science wants to shovel out" to "anything the bible wants to shovel out" and you'd be describing yourself.

The difference is, you're openly claiming that you're right and mocking everyone else. So it really looks like one really angry little piece of excrement being angry at clouds. If you want us to take you seriously, stop with the ridiculous "i'll drive you away from christianity forever!" - tactic you're currently employing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do science and religion have in common, then? They seem to me to be polar opposites.

Answers to this are not a requirement to support the understanding that science is not a religion and sometimes they are in opposition. Clearly, this thread is an example where one person's belief and interpretation is in opposition to science.

Please do not consider Dad to be a typical representative of Christianity or those that adhere to a religious view. I do not. Many Christians and religious people understand science and do not reject the findings of science, including the theory of evolution. Just as atheists do not need religion to come to rational and ethical conclusions regarding the application of science. That does not mean that it cannot have value in enforcing ethics that would lead others to similar conclusions.

 

[dad]

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...?

OK, that point is well spoken and clear.

I do not consider 'producing some same enzymes' a common biological trait though. Unless you think breathing is one too? If the same Guy created all life, how could it be that He would or could not use some same materials? Many creatures have teeth, legs, eyes...etc. We process oxygen a similar way in many instances...no?

Then there is something I would like to double check in your claim here also. Are we certain that the flatworm that lived way back at the dawn of creation produced the same enzymes? Not that I say it didn't but let;s see the evidence just to check your work here. Remember that enzymes catalyze reactions. All reactions depend on the laws of nature. So unless nature was the same in the far past, you cannot claim the same reactions happened unless we have evidence?

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?

Perhaps the nature we live in does not reflect reactions or other things in the far past here. But why would we assume God is restricted from using atoms or molecules or gook, or reactions, or materials in more than one created creature? Let's look at other things He is recorded to have made. The earth, and a place called New Jerusalem. In both cases we have gems, and pearls and trees and gold ans people and water and etc etc. So He is known to use things again. Not sure how that is an issue.

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

Well we both live in the present nature so reactions would be similar for one thing.

The human body plan is so remarkably similar to that of a fish - why?

You kidding? I tell you this fishbowl philosophy never ends!

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?

Why not??

For the giraffe, maybe the original kind in the former nature had different needs and the animal adapted to a changed world and nature? Not sure how you dig out from this that man is pond slime or comet gook, or thermal vent sludge?

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?

Would it not be silly NOT to??

The enzyme I mentioned earlier - and the genetic code that triggers its production

That process is not known to have existed at the dawn of time is it? Proof? If all you are talking about is how things work now, well, that does not even address the issue!

- and the fact that we are prone to diseases that afflict horses, pigs, cattle, monkeys, chickens...etc

We are prone to getting flattened by a falling mountain also! We are prone to breathe, have tongues, legs, walk, reproduce etc etc etc. Obviously the diseases Noah and earlier people faced did not bother them as much as today as they are recorded as having life spans of about 1000 years! Even the way some ERVs might be transferred today (via the reproduction channel) may not be the way viri or other things were able to transfer in the former nature!

. that require us to search for effective vaccines.

Some people wish you would let up somewhat on that search...as far as making them mandatory.

 

[Valjean]

They are both means to understand the world around us. Science provides us with knowledge and religion, wisely used, can help guide us in how that knowledge is applied. I am not asserting these are perfect systems and that they are flawlessly and correctly executed.

So non-overlapping magisteria, then? Science gives us actual knowledge, while religion gives us meaning, values and purpose?
They strike me as two completely independent functions, thus, "non-overlapping."

So science is not religion. QED

 

[dad]

What do science and religion have in common, then? They seem to me to be polar opposites.

Look at the reasons people claim a first life form and a hot soup singularity and you will see a balloon pregnant with belief piled on belief on top of religiously believed myth and fable etc.

 

[dad]

I see that you are still having a problem with the difference between knowing and believing. We know. You believe. If you wanted to learn there are plenty of people that will help you here. You don't have to ask me.

Lurkers..behold the spam posting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I enjoy seeing the double standard so awkwardly but regularly applied.

The dogmatically religious: Everything I believe happened in the past did, though I cannot prove that. But I really, really, really believe it, so it is true. My interpretation of religious documents is the one true interpretation, because I said so.

I doubt science because they don't have a time machine that can go back into the past. They base all their claims on things they have no evidence for.

It is such an intellectually refreshing and honest view.

 

[dad]

You don't actually know my beliefs or methodology, you're just dodging.

The beliefs and premises and methods of science are actually well known...unless you are defending some other religion?

But nice job actually addressing the content of my post. You're literally advocating for the idea of a deceptive god who makes things appear different than they are to... I don't know, i guess to single them out for easy forum ownage? This the way you saw it?

Not in any way. I am pointing out that so called science is inspired by the ol deceiver that was here deceiving Eve in the garden. So called science casts a covering on the truth and leaves you in darkness and confusion and doubting God.

 

[Darkstorn]

Look at the reasons people claim a first life form and a hot soup singularity and you will see a balloon pregnant with belief piled on belief on top of religiously believed myth and fable etc.

You could become a propagandist. Except you'll need to work on your transparency.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So non-overlapping magisteria, then? Science gives us actual knowledge, while religion gives us meaning, values and purpose?
They strike me as two completely independent functions, thus, "non-overlapping."

Science is not religion. QED

I would say they are in that regard.

I agree completely. Science is not religion. The theory of evolution is sound science and also not religion. Hypothesizing about abiogenesis is also sound science and not religion.

 

[Valjean]

What kinds of examples?

Belief in automobiles or gravity is knowledge, because we have a lot of evidence for them.
Belief in unicorns or Noah's Flood is faith, as there is, thus far, no real supporting evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Look at the reasons people claim a first life form and a hot soup singularity and you will see a balloon pregnant with belief piled on belief on top of religiously believed myth and fable etc.

Statements like this always seemed incredibly silly to me.

Like, you do realize that every single individual living thing that has ever existed started out as just an inert collection of chemicals, right? Why is it easy for you to accept a human baby being formed from inert chemicals over just nine months, but find it impossible to believe inert chemicals can form much, much simpler forms of life over a period of millions of years?

 

[Darkstorn]

The beliefs and premises and methods of science are actually well known...unless you are defending some other religion?

I'm not defending any religion, no need to. I'm not insecure like you.

But i am a Buddhist.

Oh and this strikes me a bit odd:

"The beliefs and premises and methods of science are actually well known"

Yes. Yes they are. But not to you... So why bring attention to the fact?

Not in any way. I am pointing out that so called science is inspired by the ol deceiver that was here deceiving Eve in the garden. So called science casts a covering on the truth and leaves you in darkness and confusion and doubting God.

Ohhh, so it's exactly like i told you, except now there's "the devil" doing it. Newsflash: The devil only exists in your religious dogma. I don't believe in any devils.

Here's the thing, i'm never going to convince you to be a rational person. But i can tell this to others: There's no fixing dad, but the positive aspect is this: He's the least convincing creationist on these forums. So nothing to worry, it's just a small person yelling at clouds.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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!

Yes, we HAVE observed the movement of the planets... but it wasn't until Copernicus offered up his heliocentric theory of the solar system that anyone ever seriously considered that the Earth and other planets all orbit around the sun.

So again, since no one has EVER actually witnessed the Earth orbiting the sun, surely you must REJECT it as merely a 'belief' that people have without good reason. If not, then you are a complete hypocrite when it comes to your claims about evolution.