Science IS religion

[dad]

But that knowledge was developed WITH science, so if science is a religion, it stands to reason that all of those achievements were acts of science, and therefore testament to its fulfillment as the one true religion.

You are conflating fact with fiction. There is no real sciece that develops origin theories. There may be the godless method wrongly applied and run amok, but not any useful actual science. Science FALSELY SO CALLED. Religion.

Except evolutionary biology is used extensively in modern medicine, so you're just plain wrong here. Not to mention how it revolutionized agriculture.

Not TOE biology! You are trying to piggyback knowledge of how creation works in reality now, including the adapting and evolving that is part of it, onto TOE fables. No. Zero connection!

You say that, but you can't actually support it. Do you or do you not acknowledge that a human body can be formed from inert chemicals over a period of 9 months?

No. One does not get a human from a glob of chemicals. There is more than chemicals involved. There is a created man kind reproducing. (even if it involves some test tube tinkering or genetic manipulation etc)

What needs to be realized and admitted is that man and woman is more than just the sum of our physical parts! Those who engage in ritual child sacrifice should be aware of that. (modern term is abortion)

 

[dad]

I'll back my knowledge against yours any day, pal.

You're on. I'd back a kindergarten kid over your knowledge, thanks.

 

[dad]

I think its quite "broken down" enough already - I'll pass - at the speed of light - if its all the same to you.

Long as we are clear and you were able to understand the point, fine.

 

[dad]

Not a claim. A fact.
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat

=> the evolutionary process that all biological entities are subject to.

The problem is you claim that represents how things were always when you do not know that it was.

This is what makes the flu strain evolve, triggering a need for new flu shot.
This is what makes species evolve, triggering speciation events.

Off topic. The question was not how evolution now works! The issue is your claim it was always this way exactly. I agree there also was adapting and evolving in the far past. However it looks like the nature was different and consequently also the way things were able to adapt and evolve! Evolving was likely something that happened at great speed compared to today. Furthermore all evolving started with created kinds, not some imaginary little wad of gook.

No, because making negative claims like that is meaningless.
Instead, it's you that's claiming that it WAS created by some god. Upto you to demonstrate that claim.

Forget ANY claims unless and until you know what you are talking about! If you clearly make a belief based claim and offer is as religion, fine. When you make a so called science claim you must pony up and heavily, clearly, coherently and factually support it with real evidence.

The claim of creation is a claim by God and holy men of all ages, not a so called science claim. Science is too small and unable to deal with God or creation or the spiritual and so it cannot address the issue. That is why we cannot expect creation issues of the far past to be 'demonstrated' by science any more than creation issues can be demonstrated by ants!

I personally don't make any claims about the origins of life, because it is unknown to me.

That's a healthy sign. Science should be so lucky.

 

[dad]

There is currently no theory on origins.

You are the one making the bare claims concerning that subject.

Lie. Science peddles stories about where this universe and life came from..in great detail.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

What needs to be realized and admitted is that man and woman is more than just the sum of our physical parts! Those who engage in ritual child sacrifice should be aware of that. (modern term is abortion)
...

I can get aboard about the limits to science. But religion also has a limit. You don't Know what kind of God there really is. It may be a God, which accepts abortion.

In general as religious I get you, but please don't channel God so uncritical based on a specific reading of one religion, Christianity. It might be that God is not the Christian one you believe in.

 

[dad]

Your post #199 read
"Then lift out some relevant point from that list and post it. See how it fares. I dare you."

I did and still you prevaricate. Nuff said

If that was a claim that DNA in a flatworm is similar in some ways to man sorry that is ridiculously inept.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are conflating fact with fiction. There is no real sciece that develops origin theories. There may be the godless method wrongly applied and run amok, but not any useful actual science. Science FALSELY SO CALLED. Religion.

So you've gone from saying "science is religion" to saying "the science that I personally disagree with for religious reasons is religion". Which is it?

And you are aware that there are theists who work in the field of evolutionary biology, right?

Not TOE biology! You are trying to piggyback knowledge of how creation works in reality now, including the adapting and evolving that is part of it, onto TOE fables. No. Zero connection!

Actually, there's a very strong connection. For example, we can use predictions based on the theory of evolution to produce vaccines to newly-evolving strains of diseases, and study of how living populations evolve and diversify on a micro and macro scale has lead to the formation of practically all modern farming and agricultural methodologies.

No. One does not get a human from a glob of chemicals. There is more than chemicals involved. There is a created man kind reproducing. (even if it involves some test tube tinkering or genetic manipulation etc)

But all it takes within that human is a chemical reaction. Surely you understand that what goes on in a human stomach when it digests is a chemical reaction, right? What makes you think that what happens in the womb is any different? What is the objective, physical difference between a biological, chemical process and a biological, chemical process that produces life?

What needs to be realized and admitted is that man and woman is more than just the sum of our physical parts!

In order to realize that, you need to actually demonstrate it to be true. Can you do that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If that was a claim that DNA in a flatworm is similar in some ways to man sorry that is ridiculously inept.

It's actually very true:

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

 

[dad]

I can get aboard about the limits to science. But religion also has a limit.

There are many beliefs and most are false so in general 'religion' has great limits!

You don't Know what kind of God there really is. It may be a God, which accepts abortion.

False. I know Him well and read what He said, and He loves all the little children of the world.

In general as religious I get you, but please don't channel God so uncritical based on a specific reading of one religion, Christianity.

Jesus is the only way. The door. The One who died to give us eternal life. There is no other way. All that ever came before or after are thieves and robbers.

It might be that God is not the Christian one you believe in.

[ His name is Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That there is more to that limit, than some humans notice.

An average human is adapted to the local culture and product of in part individual nature and nurture.
What happens then, when two different cultural outlooks clash is not always pretty.

Here is a relevant example:
Someone: Reality is independent of all human though and feelings/emotions.
Me: Okay, where are those then if not in reality?

I get how someone is taught to do science: E.g. the model is not the landscape. I get it and I get the limit.
The limit is that the scientists using a model about the landscape are in the landscape.
Now most, bordering on all scientist knows this, but some humans don't.
They don't notice when debating we and the world, that we are in the world and not just using the scientific law of all human behavior.

In these debates are the purpose of human life and what the overall meaning is and so on. And there is always morality and ethics involved.
Here it is as an example:
Premise: Biological evolution is a fact ( I agree even as religious)
Therefore it is wrong/unreasonable to deny that.

The conclusion doesn't follow form the premise and you can't argument it with other premises using only reason, logic and evidence.
So here is what always happens if you look closer: There are at least 3 positions:
Science is right and religion wrong.
Religion is right and science wrong.
Both have limited usefulness and neither works for all of human life.

It is more reasonable to have religion and science deal with different parts of our existence. The only ones that make the false claim that science is everything tend to be theists strawmannig the beliefs of others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

In order to realize that, you need to actually demonstrate it to be true. Can you do that?

Well, I can do that, but it is philosophy and says nothing about religion. It only tells you that there is limit to reductionism in physicalism. It is about the limit of knowledge and not metaphysics and what reality really is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are many beliefs and most are false so in general 'religion' has great limits!
False. I know Him well and read what He said, and He loves all the little children of the world.
Jesus is the only way. The door. The One who died to give us eternal life. There is no other way. All that ever came before or after are thieves and robbers.
[ His name is Jesus.

Yeah, you judge me as human based on your subjective understanding of God. Good luck with that. It might be that God doesn't agree with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is more reasonable to have religion and science deal with different parts of our existence. The only ones that make the false claim that science is everything tend to be theists strawmannig the beliefs of others.

Yes, tend to be. But there are those, a few, who over do science. I agree on the proportion. Most critiques are done by theists, who over do it. But some overdo science and turn it into metaphysical physicalism/materialism/naturalism. That is not science as such. That is philosophy.

 

[dad]

So you've gone from saying "science is religion" to saying "the science that I personally disagree with for religious reasons is religion". Which is it?

It is not personal. The basis of origin sciences is belief based regardless of what opinion you or I may have.

And you are aware that there are theists who work in the field of evolutionary biology, right?

Theists killed Jesus, so?

Actually, there's a very strong connection. For example, we can use predictions based on the theory of evolution to produce vaccines to newly-evolving strains of diseases, and study of how living populations evolve and diversify on a micro and macro scale has lead to the formation of practically all modern farming and agricultural methodologies.

Name any prediction used that has to do with the evolution of life from simple life forms like a flatworm? Ha. You see, using the knowledge that evolution does happen is not using TOE. Using observed realities of creation that exist is just working with nature!

But all it takes within that man is a chemical reaction.

False. Man is a spirit and soul, not just a blob of chemicals. A person can have 10 children and every one of them will be different, regardless of similar looking physical traits.

Surely you understand that what goes on in a human stomach when it digests is a chemical reaction, right?

It is not what goes in to us that defiles us, but what comes out...like the fables of science spewing from the mouths of so called science prophets.

What makes you think that what happens in the womb is any different?

Because Scripture says God forms us in the womb. Part of what we are is spirit, not just meat or flesh or goop.

What is the objective, physical difference between a biological, chemical process and a biological, chemical process that produces life?

Science doesn't know! Ha. Otherwise you would not have to ask. There are no natural processes that produce men from thin air or dirt. There is no random process that produces life. If a baby is made using a test tube, that is a created being using created materials and processes already set up by God and using the forces and laws and nature set up in a world with air and water and food that God set up...to tinker with or manipulate or be involved in the reproductive process God set up!

 

[dad]

Yeah, you judge me as human based on your subjective understanding of God. Good luck with that. It might be that God doesn't agree with you.

I do not judge you or anyone actually. Nor do I have to play a guessing game as to what God agrees with. He wrote it down for us and Jesus verified it was true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not judge you or anyone actually. Nor do I have to play a guessing game as to what God agrees with. He wrote it down for us and Jesus verified it was true.

Nope, not even the Bible makes that silly claim. You really should try reading your book of myths some day.

 

[dad]

It's actually very true:

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

And I may share the air I breathe with a frog. I may share water I swim in with a fish. I may have a light gleam in my eyes like star light. I may have skin like a chicken. I may have eyes like a whale. I may climb a tree like a monkey. I may build a home with wood like a termite. I may eat honey like a bear...etc etc.

One poster was just pointing out how he did not seem to know the difference between man and a glob of chemicals. This seems to be an inherent weakness in science. They are working with only half a deck of cards and partial information, so they have a shallow perspective on life and creation and man. They see no further that the reactions/chemicals etc.!

So when there are similar chemicals or DNA or etc, they get confused real fast, and are unable to tell the difference!

 

[dad]

Nope, not even the Bible makes that silly claim. You really should try reading your book of myths some day.

Lu 4:4 - And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Ac 4:31 - And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

So did you think that when they spoke the word of God that meant making stuff up, or preaching Scripture?

 

[ChristineM]

If that was a claim that DNA in a flatworm is similar in some ways to man sorry that is ridiculously inept.

Your evidence?

In a study published last week, the team, led by Assistant Professor of Biology Casey Dunn, used a San Diego supercomputer and new DNA sequencing techniques to establish Acoelomorpha flatworms as our most distant bilateral relatives.​

DNA Researchers Prove Human-Flatworm Link

And of course stem cells of worms and humans are essentially identical to humans