Science IS religion

[Hockeycowboy]

And faith is based on evidence...

Hebrews 11:1
NLT, "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see."


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Romans 1:20

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then why are there conflicting theories? Some scientists believe one thing, and others another. Grief, just deal with it, man.

What conflicting theories are there to the theory of evolution?

Do you have any examples in mind? Are you sure they are theories and not hypotheses? When theories have been in conflict, the one that offers the best explanation usually wins out. However, Newton's theory of gravity, for instance, is not conflicting with Einstein's theory of relativity, but is incomplete by comparison. It is still very useful, but it is limited in scale.

You are still confusing believe with accept. Some scientists may place more weight on some evidence compared to other evidence or one hypothesis over another, but it is not based on belief. They offer reasons for doing so. Of course, scientists are human and human bias can come into play for some people, but to leap with that to equating science with belief is a last ditch, desperation play with little to support it. Since bias can be eliminated by self-correcting mechanisms within science.

Now, there are scientists that do use belief as a component of the work they try to do and this is recognized. Intelligent design and creation science are noted and recognized pseudosciences where those trained in science have tossed out that training and are not doing science. But they are not believing the science, but substituting unsupported and subjective belief as a mechanism or a cause for the observations.

 

[Bear Wild]

Science is the name of the religion game in this thread. Do you deny science? Renounce it completely? Ha. Either that or you have religion.

If you want to discuss the bible start a thread. Seems to be lots of interest with posters here. Science is too insignificantly small and puny and weak to be able to cover a religion as big as mine. So we would not ask poor little so called science for evidence regarding it. There is a world of evidence in history and life though of course. So maybe find a thread where you can read about some of it. Here we are roasting your belief set called science. We have seen a classic colossal fail of posters here to provide evidence for the beliefs of origin sciences. Instead, some allude to evidence they can never produce, let alone debate. Others try to get off topic and discuss other religions and beliefs. This thread is not bout time tested and proven and sacred beliefs of the One true God. This thread is about the dirty deceitful fraudulent little beliefs of so called science foisted on humanity for too long now as some sort of actual 'science'!

NOT so called sciences dealing with origin issues. If you claim otherwise post this evidence right away!! Ha.
If you feel any of the few belief based statements of faith offered as evidence are evidence then you do not know what evidence is or is not.

Real science has evidences. Actual observations repeatable tests etc etc. Your religious fables have diddly squat.

Says you. Creation and the evolution that matters was in the past. You must know that much? If you mouth off claims about how you can trace genetics back to that far past, obviously it had to exist. If not..explain? Ha.


Circular religion and thinking. They USE present DNA to see how it works, and then model the past after this. The 'genetic changes' you talk about are here and now. We do not even have good samplings of animal DNA from hundreds of millions of years ago! So how are you going to tell us about their DNA ? Divining rod? Crystal ball? Blind faith?
That is where you paint whatever you see with beliefs.
The thread is about the beliefs of origin sciences. I presented examples of how it is belief based. I am not here to present 'verifiable' (by sillyscience) evidence for MY beliefs. You are here to do that for YOUR beliefs that have been wrongly labeled science.
Belief supported doesn't count. That is not well supported. that is...religion!

Are you ever confused. You start of with Science is the name of the religion game when the only game is the one you are playing. Do I deny science? Renounce it completely? Either that or you have religion? It sounds like you believe anyone that accepts science does not have religion. It appears that you fear science so much because it challenges your literal belief in the bible. Your fear shows when you call science insignificant and weak compared to your BIG religion.

Your demeaning adjectives to science and to those how post something in favor of science further shows your irrational approach "here we are roasting your belief set in science", "dirty deceitful fraudulent little beliefs". These are desperate statements from one who is terrified of what science tells us about our world so you deny any evidence you are given then you say real science has evidence or as you say evidences yet you do not accept science because is not your religion. By the way the bible has fables not science.

Your final flaw is your misinterpretation of genetics which shows the process in which it changes and creates new characteristics. Your here and now argument would mean that we would no nothing about any living thing in the past human or not if we cannot recover their genetics for the hear and now. I guess we will never know about anyone or any living thing unless we can find some remaining tissue containing their dna. Sorry Plato, sorry Socrates, oh and Sir Issac Newton I hope you don't mind if we open your tomb for a little dna if you have any to spare. Your desperate statements only show your insecurity.

 

[Bear Wild]

And faith is based on evidence...

Hebrews 11:1
NLT, "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see."


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Romans 1:20

Sorry but faith is not based on evidence it is just the opposite. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Quoting Hebrews does not make your statement correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And faith is based on evidence...

Hebrews 11:1
NLT, "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see."


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Romans 1:20

Sorry. It is not faith if it is based on evidence. Why bother to have a word that means believing without evidence is not defined so? That does not make sense.

You can believe highly subjective interpretations of scripture if you like, but some opinion is not evidence that faith has evidence. Something hoped for is not something actual is it? No, it is not. Hoping for a winning lottery ticket is not a winning lottery ticket. Certainty in something we do not see is not evidence of what we do not see. Certainty is a condition that does not require evidence to exist or demonstrate that evidence does exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then why are there conflicting theories? Some scientists believe one thing, and others another. Grief, just deal with it, man.

I am not the one that needs to deal with things. I am comfortable in the explanations I have provided. Why are you getting so tense about this? If I were sitting on a sure thing, I would not be tense. You must not be sitting on a sure thing and you know that.

You can accept science and believe in God. It eliminates a lot of tension that comes from trying to mentally jump through hoops and deny things that, deep down, you know cannot be denied.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you mean conflicting theories to the theory of evolution, there aren't any. At least not that anyone has brought up here. There is debate about the details. That is how science advances.

Here's a huge one...

The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence. - PubMed - NCBI

"In sharp contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random fixation (due to random sampling drift in finite populations) of selectively neutral (i.e., selectively equivalent) mutants...."

Within many aspects of the field, there are differing claims. What does one do with a "claim"? You either believe it, or don't. (Hence, "BAND" arose.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I am not the one that needs to deal with things. I am comfortable in the explanations I have provided. Why are you getting so tense about this? If I were sitting on a sure thing, I would not be tense. You must not be sitting on a sure thing and you know that.

You can accept science and believe in God. It eliminates a lot of tension that comes from trying to mentally jump through hoops and deny things that, deep down, you know cannot be denied.

Lol. Own it man.

Are you a 'BAND' supporter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And faith is based on evidence...

Hebrews 11:1
NLT, "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see."


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

Romans 1:20

Sorry, that is not evidence. I could call this:

a purple cow. That does not make it one. Calling circular reasoning "evidence" does not make it evidence.

 

[siti]

I hadn't actually started a thread to resolve the world of all it's dead end deceptions and beliefs.

Really? Well then congratulations are in order - you have succeeded in resolving precisely none of them in the most emphatic manner!

 

[siti]

Then why are there conflicting theories? Some scientists believe one thing, and others another.

Example?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry but faith is not based on evidence it is just the opposite. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Quoting Hebrews does not make your statement correct.

I'm sorry you can't make the connection.

Take care, cousin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a huge one...

The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence. - PubMed - NCBI

"In sharp contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random fixation (due to random sampling drift in finite populations) of selectively neutral (i.e., selectively equivalent) mutants...."

Within many aspects of the field, there are differing claims. What does one do with a "claim"? You either believe it, or don't. (Hence, "BAND" arose.)

That is mere arguing about details. And since science has move past a pure Darwinian version of evolution many years ago it really does not apply.

If you understood the article they are debating about how evolution occurred, not whether another concept can explain how the present diversity of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a huge one...

The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence. - PubMed - NCBI

"In sharp contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random fixation (due to random sampling drift in finite populations) of selectively neutral (i.e., selectively equivalent) mutants...."

Within many aspects of the field, there are differing claims. What does one do with a "claim"? You either believe it, or don't. (Hence, "BAND" arose.)

No. Neither is excepted based on belief. Just pointing out that there are different theories is not evidence that theories are believed like believing in God or some other deity.

Just because you say it, does not make it so. That is just your subjective opinion based on your religious bias.

If these are believed and not accepted based on evidence, then demonstrate that. Continually reacting using your personal, biased opinion is only demonstrating that you believe things without evidence. I can save you a lot of time by telling you that we already know the latter to be the case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry you can't make the connection.

Take care, cousin.

It is you that are not able to make the connection and it is obvious it is a willful act.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Example?

Neutral Theory vs. Darwinian ToE

The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence. - PubMed - NCBI

There are others, just Google.

 

[dad]

First tell me why you did not follow the link provided. Others can do a better job than I can, but if you answer I will explain to you what scientific evidence is and why it has the definition.

Pretending evidence is something requiring your interpretation is time wasting.

 

[dad]

You seem to be under the strange misconception that they can't. Since to date you have demonstrated a fear of learning you are in no position to judge what others know. Your Ostrich Defense makes you totally incompetent when it comes to judging what scientists know.

Great, enough spamming empty posts, get to it. Show us here and now how you think science knows what time is like in far space.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a huge one...

The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence. - PubMed - NCBI

"In sharp contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random fixation (due to random sampling drift in finite populations) of selectively neutral (i.e., selectively equivalent) mutants...."

Within many aspects of the field, there are differing claims. What does one do with a "claim"? You either believe it, or don't. (Hence, "BAND" arose.)

Subduction Zone is correct and these theories are not competing in the sense, that one is about evolution and the other is not. It is over a detail about evolution and which the better explanation for an aspect of the theory. Just as punctuated equilibrium is not refuting the theory of evolution, but is a theory about the mode of evolution. In both cases, the details are in how evolution occurs and where those theories apply and not whether evolution occurs. In none of those cases are the theories accepted or rejected based on faith-based belief. No scientist is hoping one is going to be better than the other or has some immaterial certainty that something he does not see is evidence to accept one of these over another.

I do not know how to explain this any simpler. You are one of those people that believes based on faith to the point that what you believe is real to you without evidence and you cannot understand people that accept based on evidence, since you do not require it. You do not seem to understand the difference between subjectively real to you and objectively real to anyone based on evidence. I have faith, but I understand the difference between faith and acceptance based on evidence, so it can be done. We just have to figure out how to get you there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. Own it man.

Are you a 'BAND' supporter?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I hypothesize it is some insult, but if it is not, please explain it so that I can reject that hypothesis. I am open-minded.