Science IS religion

[Dan From Smithville]

Neutral Theory vs. Darwinian ToE

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

There are others, just Google.

It is still not evidence for belief as the mechanism for accepting scientific explanations. Do you believe in gravity? What if you stop believing? Will you rise up off the ground and shoot into space?

 

[dad]

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.

Sidestepping, tip toeing, and avoiding the issue aside, if you want to offer your belief set here regarding origin sciences as something more than beliefs stop wasting words and do it.

Until then your religion stands exposed.

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.

If you prefer to run up to a pile of horse manure in a field and rub it all over you and say it smells great, fine. meanwhile I call em like I smell em! The bible opposing fables falsely called science that are wholly belief based are not science regardless what you call the stuff!

Your final flaw is your misinterpretation of genetics which shows the process in which it changes and creates new characteristics.

You willful and repeated mistake here is to act as if genetics we see today represents what existed here in the far past. Either prove nature on earth back then was the same or your claim remains...religion!

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.

Amen! Better yet we need to know what the nature then was. If it was not the same as today then the forces and laws that make genetics work as they do would not exist then. You must know the nature DNA exists IN! You do not for the far past, where the crux of the origin debate is.

I guess we will never know about anyone or any living thing unless we can find some remaining tissue containing their dna.

The records of history and the bible tell us about that time. Science cannot tell us what nature existed. Sorry if you thought science knew it all.

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.

We know what nature was like in their day. We do not now what it was like in Noah's day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You are selling him short. He has done even less than that and I was convinced that was not possible.

 

[dad]

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

They are already resolved. Jesus took care of that. I just expose the frauds.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.
.

If you read through my posts, you'd see that I agree. They are still evolutionists.

That's not what I've disputed.

It's about which claims are believed or not....

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.)

Have a good evening.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you read through my posts, you'd see that I agree. They are still evolutionists.

That's not what I've disputed.

It's about which claims are believed or not....

I am guessing you did not mean evolutionists here, since they are complimentary theories of evolution and not people.

You claim that they must be believed, but all you have done is offer your opinion to that effect and not demonstrated that is how they are accepted. That you believe what you do is obvious, since you do not have compelling evidence for that belief.

Have a good evening.

You have a good evening too. Give some thought to the fact that science does not deny God and that you can accept the former while still believing in the latter. It will eliminate having to jump through artificial hoops that you create and that will make you a lot less tense.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

No insult, I assumed you were following the posts. (I think you quoted part of my post that mentioned it...were you quote-mining? Just kidding!)
"BAND" is a group of paleontologists and ornithologists that don't accept (believe?) that birds descended from theropods.

Ok, goodnight.

 

[siti]

Neutral Theory vs. Darwinian ToE

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

There are others, just Google.

Ah! So you mean that scientists don't exactly agree on the precise mechanisms by which the process of evolution proceeds and therefore they must all be wrong? (I wonder what would happen to Christianity if we subjected it to the same standard?)

Do you understand the difference between these two 'theories'? Do you know, for example, that the disagreement applies only to the process at the molecular level? Do you know that even the staunchest of "Neutral Theory" proponents, have no beef with Darwinian natural selection at the phenotype level? Do you know that the only real difference is that whilst the received wisdom suggests that most mutations at the molecular level are either beneficial or deleterious so that they are selected or deselected by 'nature' - i.e. environment etc., neutral theory suggest that the majority of random mutations that are not deleterious are in fact neutral rather than specifically advantageous in terms of survival? These neutral mutations are not selected for, but establish themselves among populations simply as a result of probabilistic chance rather than positively selective pressure. And it turns out, with the advance of molecular biological techniques, there is mounting evidence in favour of this view. So far from helping your argument, what this tells us is that in all probability, chance plays an even more significant role in the process of evolution than even Darwin - or Darwinists - had previously thought. Turns out nature can change itself without quite so much natural intervention - let alone supernatural intervention.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No insult, I assumed you were following the posts. (I think you quoted part of my post that mentioned it...were you quote-mining? Just kidding!)
"BAND" is a group of paleontologists and ornithologists that don't accept (believe?) that birds descended from theropods.

Ok, goodnight.

I am glad to hear that. I had faith, but I did not know if I had all the evidence to take that further to acceptance.

That there are dissenting opinions in science based on evidence is not evidence that one or all of the sides are chosen based on belief. Often in those instances, it is the weight that is given to one body of evidence over another. That too, is based on reasonable and logical reliance on evidence. Being wrong about that is not an indicator of belief.

That may be the actual issue here. A misunderstanding of what it means to have dissenting opinions in science. Just because there is dissent, is not evidence that those differences are based on faith. Having a doubt is not evidence of faith. Doubt can exist out of ignorance, confusion, misunderstanding, knowledge of evidence that is known only to one side or how much weight is given to some evidence compared to other evidence. One of the important roles of a scientist is to be a skeptic and in doing so, to ensure that there is quality evidence and reason for a position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah! So you mean that scientists don't exactly agree on the precise mechanisms by which the process of evolution proceeds and therefore they must all be wrong? Do you understand the difference between these two 'theories'? Do you know, for example, that the disagreement applies only to the process at the molecular level? Do you know that even the staunchest of "Neutral Theory" proponents, have no beef with Darwinian natural selection at the phenotype level? Do you know that the only real difference is that whilst the received wisdom suggests that most mutations at the molecular level are either beneficial or deleterious so that they are selected or deselected by 'nature' - i.e. environment etc., neutral theory suggest that the majority of random mutations that are not deleterious are in fact neutral rather than specifically advantageous in terms of survival? These neutral mutations are not selected for, but establish themselves among populations simply as a result of probabilistic chance rather than positively selective pressure. And it turns out, with the advance of molecular biological techniques, there is mounting evidence in favour of this view. So far from helping your argument, what this tells us is that in all probability, chance plays an even more significant role in the process of evolution than even Darwin - or Darwinists - had previously thought. Turns out nature can change itself without quite so much natural intervention - let alone supernatural intervention.

Outside of the mild amusement value found in some of the dogmatic and obtuse posts here, it is posts like this one that make the visit worthwhile. Nice job. I learned something and like how you threaded it all together.

 

[dad]

Ah! So you mean that scientists don't exactly agree on the precise mechanisms by which the process of evolution proceeds and therefore they must all be wrong?

It doesn't matter how evolution now proceeds as far as origins go!

(I wonder what would happen to Christianity if we subjected it to the same standard?).

[/QUOTE]

Maybe God would say to some...depart from me I know you not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all in fact I think evolving happened at breakneck speed in the past. Evolving is another gift of God and created trait! (don't confuse the word evolved with the theory of evolution that is basically creation denial)

You seem confused. The theory of evolution says nothing about creation.

Someone thought they did? Let's one up that...your religion does not equal facts.

Well, apparently it does, because you consider science my religion.

Says you and your fable factory dream machine.

I'm not the one who believes in magical creation.

Great example of so called science trying to grasp at straws and claim glory for some creature it is clueless about as far as whether it was created or evolved, or evolved from what..when etc!

Actually, it's a perfect example of how evolutionary theory can produce testable predictions of past species. But, hey, ignore that if you want.

I could have done that while chewing gum. You kidding? Naturally, as the exodus and migration or fish and animals and man went out from the Eden area, the rapid evolving of the day required a lot of adapting to various habitats. That migration was early in the fossil record as expected! In no way does this mean anything related to the evolution of life from lower lifeforms as per the TOE!

Now you're just talking nonsense.

We do not know if that was a created kind of fish or creature, or whether a created kind evolved and adapted as needed (rapidly). Nor is the fossil record any indication of ancestors since most animals and man probably could not leave fossil remains in that former nature! In all ways TOE is a belief set with NO evidence and even less of a clue!

Provide a single example of any organism that is demonstrably "created" and your assertions here may be worth considering. Until then, the best explanation we have is the one that provided us with the prediction of its existence.

A fable that says nothing about the truth is biased!
I agree, you are not prevented from accepting reality by your fable belief and religion. You are prevented from being able to recognize it so that you could accept it!
Your unsupportable beliefs are not facts. (as we see by your inability to post anything but belief based hooey)

This is interesting, considering I have provided scientific sources and you have provided nothing but opinion. You have no idea whatsoever what my beliefs are relating to origins, yet you presume what they are based on the fact that I accept the science of evolution.

Take a step back, and consider if maybe it is you who is unable to accept reality.

Try to ungibberishize this.

You think it's gibberish to accept both evolution and God?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Being deliberately created is not appearing out of nowhere. In your religion they can't say where the wunder speck singularity that spawned the very universe came from or why!

How is that remotely relevant. You earlier posited that living populations are created spontaneously. Where is your evidence of this?

Most probably are, unless the few original created kinds happened to include some that could fossilize. But since most creatures as well as man could probably not fossilize, we do not have a fossil record of much of a sampling of life on earth in any given time!

This is just gibberish.

 

[siti]

But since most creatures as well as man could probably not fossilize

You have - and you're still alive!

 

[stvdv]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion

As I see it "Originscience" only has to do with gastrointestinal diseases. To say "they are religion" is not true IMO
Unless you call religion "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotiona pursuit or interest followed with great devotion"
But then at least it has nothing to do with Christianity or any other Religion
Origin Sciences - Home

 

[stvdv]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion

If something is belief base and then say "so they are religion" is not true IMO
My belief has to do with my spiritual quest. And has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neutral Theory vs. Darwinian ToE

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

There are others, just Google.

You misunderstood that article. It merely is a debate on how evolution occurs at a molecular level. It in no way disputes the fact of evolution.

Once again that is how scientific theories are perfected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretending evidence is something requiring your interpretation is time wasting.

It does not require my interpretation. I do not base it on my interpretation and now you are contradicting yourself again. You go caught in a lie. It happens far too often. It indicates that as much as you protest you really do not believe your creationism nonsense. A person that truly believed would not run away all of the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Another example of running away. Now you are running away about running away. Don't run. Only those that know that they are wrong run. Please deal with issues as they arise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read through my posts, you'd see that I agree. They are still evolutionists.

You mean "scientists". Unlike creationists that have to swear not to use the scientific method at almost every creationist site.

That's not what I've disputed.

It's about which claims are believed or not....


Have a good evening.

Not "believed". That is the creationists' weakness. It is what is accepted and that is based upon the scientific evidence. But then you probably do not understand that concept. Just as dad does not.

I wonder why all of the creationists are afraid to even discuss the nature of evidence? Is it because they know that all of the evidence is against them? That is the only reason that I can think of.