Science IS religion

[Hockeycowboy]

Such as?

And what about the stuff I mentioned about how it's impossible to come up with a generic definition of "dinosaur" which includes all dino's but excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "but not birds"?

Which would mean that birds in fact ARE dinosaurs, since they fit the definition of the word "dinosaur"...


Not really... especially not when talking to theists.
Strictly speaking "to believe" means "to accept as accurate / true" - which is an expression of certainty, not an expression of gradations of "likely".

It surely is true that it depends on context. I myself will use the word "believe" as well to express my position on certain things. Part of my worldview though, is that claiming absolute certainty about anything is kind of dishonest, as in my view one can never be 100% certain about anything.

So whenever I use the word, I always mean some kind of gradation of "likelyness".
The word "belief" would mostly reflect the stance of "highly likely".

But theists tend to interpret that word as some kind of dogmatic position of absolute certainty. At least in my experience.

Read a definition for dinosaur, please. One dictionary says, among other things ‘a reptile, which went extinct 65,000,000 ya.”

Birds are currently living species. But dinosaurs are extinct.
Do you think calling them “dinosaurs” is confusing, then?

Everything else, you’re arguing semantics.

Wish you well.

 

[Audie]

I don’t agree. For one thing, not all related evidence leads to one conclusion. There is conflicting evidence. (You never watched Perry Mason? Lol.)

That’s why there are scientists with contradictory views on the same issues, as with BAND.

Lawrence Krauss saying he ‘considers’ something is ‘likely or unlikely’...(he can’t mean he knows it)...further, more detailed evidence can be found, which would change that ‘likely’ to ‘unlikely’. That’s belief, in most people’s book.

Let us know if you ever come across one
datum point contrary to ToE.

Coz till then all you do or can do is blather.

 

[Audie]

Read a definition for dinosaur, please. One dictionary says, among other things ‘a reptile, which went extinct 65,000,000 ya.”

Birds are currently living species. But dinosaurs are extinct.
Do you think calling them “dinosaurs” is confusing, then?

Everything else, you’re arguing semantics.

Wish you well.

Says the guy who certainly would not know the
diagnostic characteristics of a dinosaur, and
is JUST playing semantics.

Other than that, great knock-down killer argument!

 

[viole]

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.

Well, that is non sequitur anyway, even if it were true that science is a belief. Beliefs are not necessarily associated to religions. For instance, I believe there is life in other planets (without evidence), but I would not associate that to a religion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why stay an Atheist then? you remind me of a Christian in your posts

Because atheism is the view one has when one realizes that there is no evidence for a god.

 

[Valjean]

Do you believe that the space station and all its intricate and complex earthly support systems, have evolved from the wheel ?, And if so, do you believe that the space station evolved from the wheel by mere chance of by intelligent design ?

Obviously you don't understand the basic mechanism of evolution. Change can occur without intentional engineering.

Machines don't reproduce with variation.

 

[Vee]

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.

The dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". From that point of view, science can't qualify as a religion.
However some forms of science, namely evolutionary science, have a lot in common with religion.
Evolutionary science is also based in a particular system of faith and it counts on the devotion of numerous followers that believe everything it says, regardless of the incredible lack of indisputable evidence.
So, I don't entirely agree with you, but you have a point.

 

[Darkstorn]

Evolutionary science is also based in a particular system of faith and it counts on the devotion of numerous followers that believe everything it says, regardless of the incredible lack of indisputable evidence.
So, I don't entirely agree with you, but you have a point.

Didn't your church say that's it's bad to tell lies? Oh right, forgot, it's okay to tell lies of people who aren't JW's. Carry on lying for Jesus then, i'll tip my hat off to ye.

I mean seriously, this incredible lack of indisputable evidence is your incredible lack of admitting that any of it exists and nothing more. You know this.

You should be aware that the forum rules also forbid you from making statements of knowledge like that. Statements of faith, sure, but you're discounting people based on your assumption alone. This is against the rules.

Belief system, heh. And such confidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

This is an inadequate description of science.
Observations & existing knowledge alone would be stagnant.
It's also about method, eg, speculating about relationships, creating theories, testing theories.
Religion doesn't do the theory testing thing.
It has only belief.

 

[gnostic]

Danger! Danger! Do not engage! Timecube levels of willfully obtuse boneheadedness lie that way! Danger!

It does not compute! It does not compute! It does not compute!

 

[Vee]

Didn't your church say that's it's bad to tell lies? Oh right, forgot, it's okay to tell lies of people who aren't JW's. Carry on lying for Jesus then, i'll tip my hat off to ye.

I mean seriously, this incredible lack of indisputable evidence is your incredible lack of admitting that any of it exists and nothing more. You know this.

You should be aware that the forum rules also forbid you from making statements of knowledge like that. Statements of faith, sure, but you're discounting people based on your assumption alone. This is against the rules.

Belief system, heh. And such confidence.

I've been studying evolutionary theory for a number of years and if I'm confident in my beliefs, it's because I know a thing or two about it. And the little I know about it is enough to write pages and pages but I don't want to bore everyone here with too much information, so lets focus on 3 subjects, shall we?

1- The origin of life

Scientists believe that the first cells emerged in the ocean, result of a spontaneous chemical reaction between non-living elements that somehow managed to form complex molecules, so complex they were able to work together and make cells.

With all the technology we have available today, in the controlled environment of a sophisticated lab, with brilliant scientists creating and manipulating the experiments, no one has been able to produce the elements believed to exist back in those days, provoke a chemical reaction between them and create living cells afterwards. Imagine it happening by chance.

Knowing that in order to survive, a cell needs RNA, DNA and proteins to work in sync, what is the probability of having these elements appearing by chance at the same time, in the same place and with the ability to self-replicate? It is easy to talk about “simple life forms, or “simple” cells, but the truth is: there’s no such thing as a simple cell, much less a simple organism.

The human body contains around 100 trillion cells of different kinds, each with its own structure and function. Our body is a network of cells, brilliantly organized, working together nonstop from the moment the embryo is formed until the moment the person dies.

The same way this works for humans, it works for all other species. Every living thing is a feat of engineering, so much so that engineers study animals and plants, to create things that imitate their features (ex the wings of airplanes, contact lenses, fabrics, etc). Am I expected to believe that those life forms appeared by chance? That the human brain is the fruit of many coincidences?


2 - All forms of life have the same origin.

Even though no one really knows how the first living cells originated, for many people it seems reasonable to believe that those few original cells gave rise to the millions of species alive today.

We know that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. It is undeniable that mutations occur in species, but does descent with modification explain the origin and diversification of all living things? Do mutations really produce entirely new species?

We know that some DNA mutations are neutral (they have no effect at all) but the clear majority is harmful, often leading to the weakening and premature death of the organism. In the struggle for survival, natural selection would have to ignore the first and eliminate the second, leaving only the mutations that favor the organism.

Again, scientists have tried to replicate this. In several studies they artificially induced human selected mutations that would favor the organism but after many years of research, they didn’t succeed in creating any new species, only different breeds of the existent ones.

What are the odds that chance succeeded in something that intelligent scientists were unable to do, not only once, but millions and millions of times, since there are millions of species alive today, believed to have evolved from a common ancestor?

That leads me to the 3rd issue.

3 - The fossil record

When Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, the oldest known fossils were from the Cambrian period. But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn’t fit Darwin’s theory. Instead of starting with one specie that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, orders, classes then phyla, the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many fully formed phyla and classes of animals. So, complex biological forms appeared right at the start.

Darwin was aware of this problem but he hoped that more data would be found to support his theory. Since that time, further exploration has turned up many layers of the earth older than the Cambrian. Paleontologists have also found Cambrian rocks in Canada, Greenland and China with well preserved fossils. Thanks to that improved knowledge many paleontologists are now convinced that the major groups of animals did appear abruptly in the early Cambrian. The fossil evidence is so strong that this event has become known as “biology’s big bang”. Ancestors or intermediaries are still unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing in the Cambrian period.

There are other problems with presenting fossils as proof for evolution, such as the comparative size and the evidence that these creatures are related, since they are separated by millions of years. With such a big interval of time separating the fossils, it is very difficult to establish a connection between them.


To finish with a quote from Richard Dawkins, from the book The Blind Watchmaker: (biology) is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed with a purpose”.
Dawkins implies that although living things look like they were designed, in fact they weren’t. I believe that living things appear to have been designed, and they were. I guess we're all entitled to our views.

 

[dad]

I agree. Especially within certain aspects of evolution, do we see “belief”. Just like the “dinosaur-to-birds” paleontologists.

True. However, since nature itself was likely not the same as now, the adapting/changing/evolving that went on then was possily lightning fast, not like evolving today. I suspect it was so fact that even possibly a living animals could undergo changes over the years!? Ha. So, if some bird kinds over the centuries did adapt to land and become dinosaurs, that would be fine with me! Who really knows? I do think the only the created original kinds were called to go onto the ark. That would mean no dinos if they were not original kinds. Hence..a sudden extinction!.

Most apparently ‘believe’ that. Is it accurate? Well, there are some well-known scientists, like Dr. Alan Feduccia, who’ve grouped themselves together, as BAND: Birds Are Not Dinosaurs. They ‘believe’ the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

That would be fine with me also! Who really cares or knows? My problem is so called science blabbers on as if it knew, and not only that, but does so in a religiously anti God, anti creation way. One of the reasons origin sciences ARE religion.

Scientists devoted to materialism may hate the word ‘believe’, but that’s what it is..

Yes, they believe nature was and always will be the same. The believe that time in deep space exists the same as here (hence the imaginary millions of years). They believe DNA always worked exactly like we see today, they believe that the fossil record represents a good sampling of life on earth for the various ages. (I suspect most animals living on earth as well as man in that different past nature actually could not even leave fossil remains at all !!! That would mean the fossil record is only of those few creatures alive at that time that, for whatever reasons, COULD leave fossil remains! Therefore it would be utterly impossible to form any tree of life from the fossils. So in EVERY facet of origin sciences it is 100% belief based. Literally. Really.

There are many fields of evolution where the scientists have no consensus as to the source or extent of change.

Their religion is a comedy of errors. They have no clue what the fossil record actually represents, therefore no clue what was alive in the various ages. They have no clue that creation is where it all started. They have no clue what nature was actually like back then. etc etc etc. They have false prophesy, imagination, and religious utterances of the damned.

 

[dad]

Where Christians got themselves in trouble was when they came up with the young Earth delusion, among other things.

Nice story.

 

[dad]

Triosephosphate isomerase...or more specifically, the evolved genetic differences in the Triosephosphate isomerase gene between free-living and parasitic flatworms that suggest a potential immunogenic target for new vaccines against parasitic flatworms. Triosephosphate isomerase is an enzyme that is common to almost - but not quite - all living things and plays an important role in glycolysis...

Free living? It seems you are talking about worms that are alive? If so, how would this even relate to the theory of evolution *where a common ancestor for this little critter and man are claimed??)

Of course the reason new vaccines and drugs are required - for example against schistosomiasis (a disease caused by parasitic flatworms) is precisely because selective pressure pushes these species in the direction of drug resistance as they evolve - the need for the continued search for new and effective vaccines is itslef a result of evolution.

The issue is NOT whether evolving happens now to little creatures, and therefore whether man can use this knowledge.

The issue is whether the evolving we do see going on is connected to the claims of the theory of evolution regarding where man came from (and all life on earth).

But that was a good reply that actually seemed to try to address the issues. (Subduction zone...take notes)

 

[dad]

Not even a little bit true. Origin science has **evidence**. No belief is required nor wanted-- indeed, faith can seriously get in the way of good science.

Thanks for expressing such a ridiculous claim for all to see here. Now, all you need to do is give us a few examples of this evidence for evo fable origins so called science claims! Good luck with that.

Because faith is a foregone "conclusion" based on "wishes" and can lead to ignoring fact.

When little man starts off assuming there was no creation and looks for other possible reasons we are here, that is doig what you said of course. They seek only darkness and that is what they find.

As is the case with every creationist, everywhere: Who 100% ignore mountains of fact, in order to preserve faith.

Rather than alluding to greatness of knowledge, the thing you must do in this thread is actually post some so I can play whack a mole with it

 

[dad]

That would be a false statement, if anyone other than creationists say that flatworms are "the earliest relative of man".

The correct observation is: distant ancestors of flatworms are also distant ancestors of apes, of which humans are a member.

And since evolution never stops? Modern flatworms may be different in subtle ways than their distant ancestors.

But yes-- all chordate (backbone) life on Earth can trace through flatworms as a group.

Your opinion aside let's look at what science claims then shall we?

"Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science

A team of scientists from Spain and the UK has determined that a certain curiously primitive group of flatworms are the oldest living ancestors to all "bilateral" animals-that is, those with a right and left side.

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science

So when I say relative, I am thinking about how science claims we share ancestors, so we are basically according to them relatives.


How does it feel being relatives with cockroaches? (in your mind) Ha.

 

[dad]

All of that is engineering, not natural science.

Engineers use the findings of science to build technology.

True. But science is responsible for WOMD, and etc. Nothing used in anything on earth is from origin sciences fables. Nor can science tell us that this natural world we live in now existed in Noah's day or will exist in the future kingdom of God coming to earth. Therefore, when origin science uses our current laws to extrapolate and model the past, this is...as the OP says...religion!

 

[dad]

The only reason people need new flu shots every year, is because the virus continually evolves - like all other biological entities, and the old vaccines no longer work.

Right, I think most of us know this...so? What has that got to do with you being relatives with worms?

 

[dad]

What "kinds"?

The kinds that used to be here when God created them.

 

[dad]

So anything belief based is religion now?

Not sure 'anything' based on beliefs is a religion. But the discipline of science so called (origin sciences and their influence even in geology and etc etc) are very religious.

Not only belief based, but religiously biased to include only ideas from a preset methodology and criteria.