Science IS religion

[dad]

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

Believe in little green men all you like, and call it football if you like! Ha.

 

[dad]

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.

Actually there are many definitions and people do not really agree!

But if the big bang created the universe, it would qualify as a controlling power that people think about when they look at (and reverence/worship before God) the stars. I remember Carl Sagan pictured the world as some little meaningless blue speck in a big universe. The belief set of so called science results in looking at God's creation is strange ways.

However some forms of science, namely evolutionary science, have a lot in common with religion.

Bingo.

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.

OK thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree that science is based on evidence, but I can't take it seriously if it's based on theory. Science can come up with a theory, sure, it has to start somewhere. But for it to be credible, it needs to be proved, otherwise it will continue a theory, and not a fact. My biggest issue with evolutionary science is that is has drawn too many conclusions from very few tangible facts.
In my opinion believing in evolution requires as much faith as believing in God. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a living cell in a lab, from the non living elements that scientists believe existed when life began. If they weren't able to do even that much, how am I supposed to take everything else seriously?
They want to come up with theories? No problem. But I won't accept them as facts based on consent. I'll accept them as a fact when I see them done, multiple times, with the same results. That's science to me.

Science is in large part, sets of theories. Theories in the scientific sense of explanation and not in the colloquial sense of mere speculation. There is no proof in science. Science tests theories. Science uses theories to hypothesize and predict. Science does not prove theories. However, regarding the theory of evolution, it is the most well-supported theory in science. The theory of gravity that practically everyone accepts does not have the evidential basis and understanding that exists with the theory of evolution.

To the best of my knowledge, all the conclusions regarding evolution have been drawn based on the evidence. This is not the same as saying that all conclusions are correct. But even if some are incorrect, that is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to discard the theory. There have been incorrect conclusions based on the evidence of various research in the past, that did not cause relevant theory to be discarded.

Here is a contrived example of what I mean. People are beings that communicate. We know some things about this. We continue to learn more and recognize how little we actually know. If I were an expert in linguistics and claimed that most major European languages do not have some origin in Latin, but are derived from Inuit languages I would be wrong, but this would not drive a need to discard theories of language.

Regarding abiogenesis, the current position in science is that we do not know how life originated. At this point, abiogenesis is a set of hypotheses that are in need of data to test them with. Data existed in their formulation and scientists are currently gathering data. At some point they may have enough to discard some or all of these hypotheses, but there is no reason to consider that life could not originate from the action of natural processes in the environment.

What you demand regarding evolution has essentially been carried out over the last 200 years and continues to this day with an expectation that testing will continue on into the future. This rigor will be applied to studies in abiogenesis as well. This does not mean that we will find the answer or an answer, but a growing number of scientists will be looking and testing. Not finding anything will not lead to some default answer being correct either.

 

[dad]

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.

Yes, the method of omitting the creator and imagining other ways to explain creation at any cost!

 

[dad]

My reference was to evolution not to abiogenesis. Two different subjects connected but different.

Yeah yeah we all know the distance evos place in the embarrassing part of their fable. So rather than stat with the imaginary first life form, you can start with molecules or amoebas or worms or something! Ha. Tomato/tomatoe.

Evolution is science not religion.

Is to.

No magical thinking here only evidence based information that anyone of any religion or no religion can understand.

Right, you take the Gd given ability for creatures to evolve (as observed in this present nature only) and you endow this feature of created life with the power of creating all life on earth! Religion.

Yes we evolved from simple life forms as humbling as that might seem to you.

No. We did not as strange as truth may be to your religion!

I personally find it amazing and feel very connected with other life on our wonderful planet.

I understand the delusional, euphoric power of false religion. No problem.

All you need to do is transcend your human centric mind who created a god in mans image

Prove it.

and maybe you will one day understand the power of the evolutionary process that gives us such a beautiful and diverse planet.

[ Rather than me coming over to the deluded side, how about you come on over to the winning side? The water is fine here.

 

[viole]

Believe in little green men all you like, and call it football if you like! Ha.

Little green men? Football?
Are you OK?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dad]

Currently the deep debate is believers believe there is a deeper intellect to what the intellect can grasp. The non believers say show me the proof of this deeper intellect i need intellectual proof. The believers say we have faith and belief! The atheists say nonsense all there is is my intellect get real be like me.... Agnostics are uncertain and wait fir intellectual proof!

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer precisely 3.

I as a breathairian we believe we breathe!!
The anti breathairians dont believe we breathe. They say show us proof and then We will believe!

We get together in the breathairian forum and debate this great deep topic constantly. For Thousands of years!!! We have made great deep strides in this debate. We believe we will win and everyone will someday be believers.

That's nice.

 

[dad]

I repeat: what kinds?

What are they?
Define the word in such a way that I can look at any 2 random creatures and determine if they are the same "kind", without having to ask you.

The kinds were not created today! So as you improve science so it can go back and look, we can talk. Personally I use the knowledge based approach. I look at what animals are mentioned in the bible and assume most are probably created kinds. Since your religion (science) cannot cover this, you must remain ignorant.

 

[dad]

Everything. It's the same evolutionary process.

Ah. Finally, a claim. You are saying that the evolution we NOW see and the way it happens in this nature represents the past. Not only that but you are claiming that it did not start at creation by God, but merely existed and worked as is to produce life on earth! Correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Currently the deep debate is believers believe there is a deeper intellect to what the intellect can grasp. The non believers say show me the proof of this deeper intellect i need intellectual proof. The believers say we have faith and belief! The atheists say nonsense all there is is my intellect get real be like me.... Agnostics are uncertain and wait fir intellectual proof!

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer precisely 3.

I as a breathairian we believe we breathe!!
The anti breathairians dont believe we breathe. They say show us proof and then We will believe!

We get together in the breathairian forum and debate this great deep topic constantly. For Thousands of years!!! We have made great deep strides in this debate. We believe we will win and everyone will someday be believers.

I am breathless with anticipation. I want to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that science is based on evidence, but I can't take it seriously if it's based on theory. Science can come up with a theory, sure, it has to start somewhere. But for it to be credible, it needs to be proved, otherwise it will continue a theory, and not a fact. My biggest issue with evolutionary science is that is has drawn too many conclusions from very few tangible facts.

I have noticed that you try to be reasonable so I will gladly respond here. First off theories are never "proven" in the sciences At least not in a mathematical sense. If your standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then theories such as the theory of evolution have been proven. And if you think that there is a lack of "tangible facts" for evolution then you simply do not appreciate the mountains of independent evidence for the theory. At this point in the sciences denying evolution is akin to denying gravity.

One concept that you should be aware of is that of "concordance". In the sciences that is when independent sources all agree on a subject. It is thought to be extremely strong evidence that an idea is correct. For example you may be aware of some of the fossil evidence, but there is much more than you seem to be aware of (referring to your earlier statement of "very few tangible facts") the fossil evidence alone is huge. Every fossil found has confirmed the theory of evolution and millions of fossils could have refuted it. That is one collection of evidence. Even stronger evidence is DNA and the nested hierarchies that it falls in. Again, DNA could have refuted the theory of evolution and when it was first discovered it was the creationists who made claims on the order of "This will surely refute evolution when analyzed" and yet it was the other way around. Another independent line of evidence is that of homology. Of how body parts are shared and changed over species, again falling into a nested hierarchy. I could go on, there are even more, but you should see how this points strongly to evolution as a fact. In a murder case it would be like having fingerprints, DNA, video of the suspect's presence and blood stains on the suspect. In the sense of a trial there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than any murder trial ever.

In my opinion believing in evolution requires as much faith as believing in God. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a living cell in a lab, from the non living elements that scientists believe existed when life began. If they weren't able to do even that much, how am I supposed to take everything else seriously?

They want to come up with theories? No problem. But I won't accept them as facts based on consent. I'll accept them as a fact when I see them done, multiple times, with the same results. That's science to me.

But that is only due to your own lack of education in the science. Faith is not required at all. In fact faith is the last thing that a scientist wants. And the theory has been tested many many times always producing the same "results". Scientists do not take evolution on faith any more than they take gravity on faith. It is a rather serious insult to claim that they do so.

 

[viole]

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.

Looks like that when God created humans, He got lazy by reusing some ape design, then.

To realize the truth of evolution, at least ours, all is needed is a mirror and a visit to the zoo....apes section.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dad]

Science is in large part, sets of theories. Theories in the scientific sense of explanation and not in the colloquial sense of mere speculation. There is no proof in science. Science tests theories. Science uses theories to hypothesize and predict. Science does not prove theories. However, regarding the theory of evolution, it is the most well-supported theory in science. The theory of gravity that practically everyone accepts does not have the evidential basis and understanding that exists with the theory of evolution.

Thanks for admitting that you can't prove anything and that the strongest belief in the fable arsenal is the theory of evolution that has you being a relative of cockroaches!

To the best of my knowledge, all the conclusions regarding evolution have been drawn based on the evidence.

If you are talking about the theory of evolution of life on earth...no. There is actually NO evidence whatsoever. Not one iota. I kid you not. It is religion.

This is not the same as saying that all conclusions are correct. But even if some are incorrect, that is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to discard the theory.

I cannot discard a fable/theory that I never accepted.

There have been incorrect conclusions based on the evidence of various research in the past, that did not cause relevant theory to be discarded.

Wrecking idols in ancient Israel did not cause all idolatry to stop either. The wrath of God to come in the tribulation/end period will not cause men to stop their blasphemies either. Why would I expect the good ship EVO to be abandoned with every repair needed?

Here is a contrived example of what I mean. People are beings that communicate. We know some things about this. We continue to learn more and recognize how little we actually know. If I were an expert in linguistics and claimed that most major European languages do not have some origin in Latin, but are derived from Inuit languages I would be wrong, but this would not drive a need to discard theories of language.

The theories of language are origin science religion. It started at Babel.

Regarding abiogenesis, the current position in science is that we do not know how life originated.

Hence, why they branched it off as a separate science, to avoid the embarrassment of being totally exposed as NOT knowing what they are talking about!

...there is no reason to consider that life could not originate from the action of natural processes in the environment.

Or that the universe came from turtle poop?

What you demand regarding evolution has essentially been carried out over the last 200 years and continues to this day with an expectation that testing will continue on into the future.

?? What I demand? What I hope and expect for all dark lying fables is that they wither away and die to be remembered no more, unless as some eternal memorial to how low fallen man can sink in abject foolishness!

 

[ChristineM]

That is not usually part of origin science is it!? Now if you want to talk about the far universe and gravity there and what you think it does..or exactly what gravity was like in Noah's day..or what it will be like on earth after Jesus returns to rule...maybe we could talk!

Gravity is everywhere, from the beginning, cant get more original than that, without it this universe would just be a giant cloud of hydrogen.
To prove it is everywhere just jump up into the air and see the effect of gravity so what has the far universe to do with the price of fish?

Did noah actually exist?

For that matter did JC exist as depicted in the bible? Word is he was the ******* son of a Roman soldier (yes i have seen his dads gravestone) and something of an anarchist opposing the legitimate rule of the land.

And still gravity remains constant

 

[David T]

I am breathless with anticipation. I want to believe.

I saw where jane goodall said she knows factually scientifically big foot is not real, but she really wants to believe.

I had a day dream. And in that dream i was in line, at a jane goodall conference to get a picture signed.

When it was my turn i said to jane" a friend of mine asked me to say hi. He says he has seen bigfoot, and he showed me a picture of him with bigfoot."
I then ask" jane can you verify bigfoot in the picture his name is david sitting next to what he claims is big foot."

Here is the pic of david graybeard with what he calls bigfoot. I dont believe i just experience and pass it on. No comentary at all. Apparently Jane has large feet.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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..

How about 14 links, each of which contain thousands of pieces of evidence? Will that do? Or will you Run Awaaaay! as is your habit?


1) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? - Astrobiology Magazine
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
8) http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

kl

You first. I have not seen even one argument from you, that is anything other than name-calling and belittling.

But there you go! The stock-and-trade of ALL creationists the world over. All hat, No cattle.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Clickbait Titles not withstanding. The articles linked? Agree with me, not you.

YOU? Twist the words to construct your STRAW-MAN LIE, as is your habit.

But nevermind that-- we ARE related to flatworms, using DNA analysis.

You know about DNA? Right? The molecule that 100% proved all creationism wrong? In one fell swoop?

 

[Darkstorn]

I agree that science is based on evidence, but I can't take it seriously if it's based on theory. Science can come up with a theory, sure, it has to start somewhere.

Theory is the best you can get to, not something you start with.

You really have a problem if you refuse to accept the definition for scientific theory.
It immediately means you're merely holding a facade of understanding.

I find this very dishonest.

But for it to be credible, it needs to be proved, otherwise it will continue a theory, and not a fact.

It HAS been evidenced beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution is fact, the theory of evolution explains the facts.

But you just show your anti-science bias with ridiculous sayings like that.

You literally don't understand the scientific method.

My biggest issue with evolutionary science is that is has drawn too many conclusions from very few tangible facts.

I suspect your understanding to be too limited based on what you're saying to really make calls like that.

You are not convincing.

In my opinion believing in evolution requires as much faith as believing in God. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a living cell in a lab, from the non living elements that scientists believe existed when life began. If they weren't able to do even that much, how am I supposed to take everything else seriously?

If you can't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, how are we supposed to take you seriously?

They want to come up with theories? No problem. But I won't accept them as facts based on consent. I'll accept them as a fact when I see them done, multiple times, with the same results. That's science to me.

This isn't how science works, so perhaps it is your understanding that's suspect here?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

It feels fine-- cockroaches are some of the most amazing critters on the planet. They are so incredibly adapted to the role they exist in, that there is nothing even close to knocking them out of that niche.

When humans have killed each other, fighting over what happens to us when we die, and which fictional hell we are all going to?

Cockroaches will still be there, doing what they do best-- mating and reproducing.

The truth is? I'd rather be related to a cockroach, than a creationist any day-- a cockroach is honest in what the roach does. In direct contrast to...