Science Is/As A Religion

[daveman]

Your link doesn't work for me. Try the quote feature. That is, if you can figure out how to use it

It's a link to Post #62. And the link works for me.

That explains why you didn't post any text

Post #62 is the post where you stupidly claim that the differentiation of species is the only thing evolution explains.

How does your stupidity (contained in post #62) prove you're not stupid?

You didn't read the entire post.

Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?

I'm betting "yes". ​

And I was indeed right.

 

[sangha]

You're really not very good at this, are you?

Translation - Once again, I've reduced dave to an emotional wreck. incapable of responding to my arguments.

Your argument: "It's wrong because YOU said it!"

My argument (which you are too scared to respond to) is

1) Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself. Dave is now too scared to explain why he brought up the issue of the origins of life when he KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

2) Dave claims he knows what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species . As far as I can tell, Dave still believes that evolution only explains the differentian of species

Dave, let me know when you work up the courage to defend the two claims of yours.

 

[sangha]

Despite all these posts back and forth, are you claiming I really do believe evolution explains the origin of life?

Based on what? Where I said it doesn't?

Why did you criticize evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself? If you know the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution, then why did even mention the issue of the origins of life itself?

Here's where you respond with another one-liner and run away from explaining yourself because the explanation proves you didn't know that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

See, you're not making a bit of sense.

I've seen creation-deniers refute creation by pointing to evolution. When I ask them were life came from originally, they again pointed to evolution.

You are lying. That's why you won't post any links or name any of these mythical "sciencers"

Not everyone on your side of the aisle is intelligent. You need to accept this fact and stop pretending otherwise.

I know that evolution does not explain the origin of life. I've said it several times in this thread. I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.

You are so dumb that you still don't understand that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That's why you are too scared to explain why you brought up the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

Now, do you want to keep insisting that I don't know that " evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"? Because you're going to look pretty stupid if you keep it up.

You still don't realize that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life itself. That's why, in spite of all this back and forth, you haven't posted three things

1) While you have stated that evolution does not explain the origin of life, you STILL DON"T KNOW that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That is why you still haven't admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origins of life.

2) You still haven't explained why you even mentioned the issue of the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

3) You claim that (some? many? one?) "sciencers" think that evolution explains the origins of life itself. You still haven't posted anything to support your claim

 

[sangha]

It's a link to Post #62. And the link works for me.

That explains why you didn't post any text

Post #62 is the post where you stupidly claim that the differentiation of species is the only thing evolution explains.

How does your stupidity (contained in post #62) prove you're not stupid?

You didn't read the entire post.

Now, are you going to try to keep telling me what I know, when in fact I've told you what I know, and it bears no resemblance to what you insist I know?

I'm betting "yes". ​

And I was indeed right.

Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life. Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution

 

[daveman]

Translation - Once again, I've reduced dave to an emotional wreck. incapable of responding to my arguments.

Your argument: "It's wrong because YOU said it!"

My argument (which you are too scared to respond to) is

1) Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself. Dave is now too scared to explain why he brought up the issue of the origins of life when he KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

Wrong. I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.

So it looks like this half of your argument has failed.

2) Dave claims he knows what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species . As far as I can tell, Dave still believes that evolution only explains the differentian of species

When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.

How many times will I have to explain that before you accept it?

So it looks like the second half of your argument has failed.

Dave, let me know when you work up the courage to defend the two claims of yours.

Done. And it took no courage, just patience to wade through your self-righteous bullshit.

Meanwhile, we can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you respond to what I actually say, not what you want me to have said and then declare yourself teh winnar.

 

[daveman]

Why did you criticize evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself? If you know the origins of life itself has nothing to do with evolution, then why did even mention the issue of the origins of life itself?

Here's where you respond with another one-liner and run away from explaining yourself because the explanation proves you didn't know that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

See, you're not making a bit of sense.

I've seen creation-deniers refute creation by pointing to evolution. When I ask them were life came from originally, they again pointed to evolution.

You are lying. That's why you won't post any links or name any of these mythical "sciencers"

Your childish petulant foot-stamping aside, I am not lying. And I can't very well post links to message board discussions when those boards no longer exist, can I?

Your inability to accept that reflects only on you.

Not everyone on your side of the aisle is intelligent. You need to accept this fact and stop pretending otherwise.

I know that evolution does not explain the origin of life. I've said it several times in this thread. I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.

You are so dumb that you still don't understand that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That's why you are too scared to explain why you brought up the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

Wrong. I never claimed evolution was supposed to explain the origin of life.

Now, do you want to keep insisting that I don't know that " evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life"? Because you're going to look pretty stupid if you keep it up.

You still don't realize that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life itself.

I know. You can tell because I keep saying that.

That's why, in spite of all this back and forth, you haven't posted three things

1) While you have stated that evolution does not explain the origin of life, you STILL DON"T KNOW that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origins of life. That is why you still haven't admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origins of life.

I've admitted it several times. It's really not my fault you'd rather listen to the voices in your head.

2) You still haven't explained why you even mentioned the issue of the origin of life when you KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

I was illustrating that some creation-deniers are in fact not very bright.

3) You claim that (some? many? one?) "sciencers" think that evolution explains the origins of life itself. You still haven't posted anything to support your claim

You'll just have to get over it, looks like.

 

[Muhammed]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?

 

[sangha]

Quick! Tell me what's nonfactual about this statement:

Evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.​

Degree of difficulty: You have to use what I've actually written, not what your bigotry against conservatives and Christians tells you I believe.

You can't find the non-factual part of that statement (even though I have already explained why it's non-factual) and that just proves how stupid you are

The statement "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species" is non-factual because evolution explains MORE than just the differentiation of species.

Please note that, as you requested, my answer uses only what it written and makes no reference to any religion or political philosophy

Kinda stretching there, aren't you?

Once again, Dave has been so pwned he can't respond with an argument. All he can do is claim I've made a mistake of some sort (ie "kinda stretching there") without actually stating what was mistaken

And once again, Dave has proven that he thinks evolution should explain the origin of life and falsely criticizes because it "only explains the differentiation of species"

And in response, Dave will once again fail to explain why thinks that evolution only explains the differentiation of species. Once again, Dave will fail to explain why he raised the issue of the origin of life itself if he already knew that this had nothing to do with evolution.

 

[daveman]

Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life.

You're lying.

I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.​

Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution

You're lying.

I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.​

If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.

 

[daveman]

You can't find the non-factual part of that statement (even though I have already explained why it's non-factual) and that just proves how stupid you are

The statement "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species" is non-factual because evolution explains MORE than just the differentiation of species.

Please note that, as you requested, my answer uses only what it written and makes no reference to any religion or political philosophy

Kinda stretching there, aren't you?

Once again, Dave has been so pwned he can't respond with an argument. All he can do is claim I've made a mistake of some sort (ie "kinda stretching there") without actually stating what was mistaken

And once again, Dave has proven that he thinks evolution should explain the origin of life and falsely criticizes because it "only explains the differentiation of species"

And in response, Dave will once again fail to explain why thinks that evolution only explains the differentiation of species. Once again, Dave will fail to explain why he raised the issue of the origin of life itself if he already knew that this had nothing to do with evolution.

You're lying.

When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.​

If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.

 

[sangha]

Your argument: "It's wrong because YOU said it!"

My argument (which you are too scared to respond to) is

1) Dave claims he knows that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life itself, but he still criticized evolution for not explaining the origins of life itself. Dave is now too scared to explain why he brought up the issue of the origins of life when he KNEW it had nothing to do with evolution

Wrong. I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.

You are lying again. Here is what you said

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

The problem is, you still haven't posted anything back up your lie. So far, there is no evidence that any "sciencer" has claimed that evolution explains the origin of life.


So it looks like your argument has failed.

2) Dave claims he knows what evolution explains, but he posts that evolution only explains the differentiation of species . As far as I can tell, Dave still believes that evolution only explains the differentian of species

When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.

And once again you prove you don't know what evolution is. The differntiation of species is not "evolutions' purpose". The purpose of evolution is to explain how the distribution of genes within a population changes over time. This is now the third time I have explained what evolution is, and I have no doubt that you still don't know what evolution is

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.

How many times will I have to explain that before you accept it?

I will never accept it because you are lying. You have said that the differentiation of species is the ONLY THING that evolution explains.

Evolution explains only the differentiation of species

You are not only wrong, but now you're lying about what you said previously

So it looks like the second half of your argument has failed also

Dave, let me know when you work up the courage to defend the two claims of yours.

Done. And it took no courage, just patience to wade through your self-righteous bullshit.

You haven't "explained" why you raised the issue of the origins of life. You lie and you are refuting people who claim evolution does explain the origin of life, but you can't prove that these mythical "sciencers" exist.

And you have explained why you said "Evolution explains only the differentiation of species"

Meanwhile, we can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you respond to what I actually say, not what you want me to have said and then declare yourself teh winnar.

We can continue this discussion if you like, but only if you stop denying that you said what you actually said, not what you would like to have said

You said that "evolution explains only the differentiation of species. You have also said the opposite -

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well

Let us know when you have the courage to explain how evolution "explains only the differentiation of species" AND that evolution "has effects in the micro view as well"

 

[HUGGY]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?

Your religious belief gives you a -2. (-2)+(2)=0

 

[Muhammed]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

What if one has a religious belief that 2+2 = 4?

Your religious belief gives you a -2. (-2)+(2)=0

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

 

[sangha]

Once again, you are still operating under the inane idea that evolution is supposed to explain the origins of life. Nowhere in this thread have you admitted that evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life.

You're lying.

I can't make it any plainer: Evolution does not explain the origin of life.​

Now I see what the problem is. You're too stupid to realize the difference between "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" and "Evolution is NOT SUPPOSED TO explain the origin of life"

You STILL have not admitted that evolution is NOT SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life

Nowhere in this thread have you explained why you raised the issue of the origin of life when you knew it had nothing to do with evolution

You're lying.

I did not criticize evolution for not explaining the origin of species. I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species.​

If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.

Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers"

 

[JBeukema]

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.

Science is not a religion (at least it should not be as evidenced when it is perverted as in the cause of AGW) and is defined by it's objective which is to take empirical measurements of the physical world and deduce how it works from those observations.

Even Einstein (pretty much an atheist) though felt there was a place for religion in science when he stated

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." in his
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

You're really gonna quote a socialist? Why do you commutard demonrats hate America?

Actually, I quoted a genius and while his political views are very far from my own (you clearly have no idea where my political views are) , his comments are made more impactful because of who and what he was.

So because he was a socialist his words are 'more impactful'?



So if Marx had said cutting off your left arm would grant eternal life, you'd do it?


Einstein rejected the implications of his own theory, btw, because they challenged his faith.

 

[JBeukema]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Don't have to. The existence of life is self evident. The absolute moment that chemicals and elements transformed into self replicating life will probably never be found. It is almost a certainty that the very first life did not have any defenses or methods of self protection and only lived barely long enough to replicate. It was almost certainly totally dependent on a very specific environment which does not exist today. For instance...there was no oxygen in our atmosphere when life got started. We know this because the element Iron turns red when exposed to oxygen and there is evidence of pre oxygen affected iron. Earliest life has long since become reintegrated into the earths crust through the actions of plate tectonics.

Fail. An atheist could accept the Solid State model and believe we were created by aliens.

Atheism is a-theism, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[sangha]

Kinda stretching there, aren't you?

Once again, Dave has been so pwned he can't respond with an argument. All he can do is claim I've made a mistake of some sort (ie "kinda stretching there") without actually stating what was mistaken

And once again, Dave has proven that he thinks evolution should explain the origin of life and falsely criticizes because it "only explains the differentiation of species"

And in response, Dave will once again fail to explain why thinks that evolution only explains the differentiation of species. Once again, Dave will fail to explain why he raised the issue of the origin of life itself if he already knew that this had nothing to do with evolution.

You're lying.

When looking at the history of life on this planet (and I was, because I was talking about the origin of that life), the differentiation of species is evolution's purpose -- the macro view.

Do I believe that is the only thing evolution seeks to explain? No. It has effects in the micro view as well, as shown by recorded observations.​

If Sangha didn't lie, he'd have nothing to say.

Dave orginally said that "evolution explains only the differentiation of species". Dave is now pretending he never said that because he doesn't want to explain why he said that when he knows it is wrong and that evolution explains more than that. Evolution explains many more things than the differentiation of species. Dave knows he was wrong when he said (even he admits that evolution explains more) said, but he is not honest enough to admit it.

I wonder if Dave will ever have the courage to explain how evolution explains ONLY the differntitation of species when he knows that it explains more than that

on edit: And Dave repeats his stupid claim that explaining the differentiation of species is "evolutions' purpose". It jus proves that Dave doesn't know what evolution is

 

[Muhammed]

Einstein rejected the implications of his own theory, btw, because they challenged his faith.

Howso?

 

[JBeukema]

Religion is "magical" in nature. Science is not. They are mutually "exclusive". It's just that simple.

Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.

You've evidence of this claim?

 

[JBeukema]

I guess I am simple-minded. What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.

What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?

Years ago I asked a crackpot southern baptist preacher that very question.
His reply ?
The devil created dinosaur bones to deceive mankind.

I was told God put them there to challenge our faith in him and see whether we'd use them as an excuse to reject him

Then I was told that they all lived together but dinos were slower to escape the flood and ended up on bottom