Science Is/As A Religion

[JBeukema]

So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

It's clear to me that you have no actual knowledge on evolution, but through the magic of using outdated copied and pasted information you also don't understand, you feel you are in a position to draw conclusions! Fantastic.

First off, if you want to discuss evolution, it's best to avoid material from the 1800s. Just because you don't understand the topic doesn't mean others need faith. It just means we're smarter than you in the subject.

I find it interesting that it's always the religious nuts who try to force faith upon others, even if it's not their own.


Religion does the same? Well yes, except one goes about it with evidence and fact, and the other goes about it with blind guessing and folk tales.

Again, the only ones who compare religion and science are people who don't understand science.


Sciencers? Really? You do realize how absolutely retarded that sounds, don't you? And I don't use that word lightly ever. No, no "sciencer" fails to realize that evolution only explains differences between and within species. That's because THAT'S ALL EVOLUTION DOES. It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Seems to me that "religioners" fail to realize that. Similarly, learning how to drive a car has nothing to do with learning how to manufacture a car from scratch. They are two completely separate concepts in the same field.


I hope you realize that poor excuse for a rebuttal came from this:

The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory.

See above regarding evolution to have nothing to do with the origin of life.

Who else would like to look like they have no clue what they're talking about?

Your post begins with a HUGE error.....PC has no desire to DISCUSS evolution as proven by the fact that she has not responded to any post which refutes her absurd claims. Instead of discussing anything, she is only responding to posters who agree with her

She doesn't want to discuss evolution because she knows she doesn't know what she's talking about. Thats why she always cuts and pastes her arguments; She's too ignorant to express an idea using her own words

PC's the best troll here

 

[Intense]

Evolution Theory Overview

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)

The often seen quote above by famous geneticist Dobzhansky elegantly captures the paramount importance of evolution. Stated differently, evolution is the single organizing principle of all the biological sciences. The terms evolution and natural selection are often used synonymously, though natural selection itself is but one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Yet, and paradoxically, evolution is either misunderstood or even adamantly denied by a large proportion of the public.

Darwin's Observations and Conceptualizations
Darwin's observations during his travels ultimately led him to four fundamental concepts that he elegantly put forth on his 1859 book, Origin of Species:

Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability).
Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Darwin's conceptualization of natural selection was a remarkable accomplishment in the mid-19th century, and Darwin was right, within the limits of the science at the time. However, that Darwin's natural selection is perhaps too easy to understand led to misunderstandings such as "survival of the fittest", and its sad extrapolation to social Darwinism. Darwin's natural selection could not incorporate gene inheritance or random gene mutation because genes had not yet been discovered. Modern evolutionary theory describes decent with modification at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwin described evolution at the level of organisms, speciation and individuals.

"From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so they can be classed in groups under groups." Charles Darwin

Evolution and the Tree of Life

The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
Decent with modification, or evolution, is often described by the so-called tree of life. A tree is inherently hierarchical, as is the great "Tree of Life". Its boughs are analogous to the higher Linnean rankings, i.e., the domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc. Smaller branches correspond to middle rankings, i.e., the orders, families and genera. At the end of the many branches are the twigs, the uncountable species, some 99% of which are extinct. The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree; he elegantly wrote:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Charles Darwin, 1859).

The eye of the Trilobite was already highly sophisticated by Cambrian time - yet, it was hardly a perfect design - rather, it resulted from the tinkering of natural selection on the genomic ingredients that already existed.
Misconceptions about evolution
Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms - this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.
EVOLUTION

 

[HUGGY]

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?

Sure. Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4 2 is both the value of Faith and Reason. Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2. Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable. 4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.

 

[sangha]

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

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

Sure. Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4 2 is both the value of Faith and Reason. Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2. Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable. 4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.

That makes a certain kind a sense.....nonsense

 

[Sunni Man]

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.

Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.

And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.

They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.

Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.

Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.

 

[HUGGY]

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

Sure. Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4 2 is both the value of Faith and Reason. Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2. Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable. 4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.

That makes a certain kind a sense.....nonsense

I think the formula plays out well in real world. Take the case of Galileo. Faith was challenged ...faith canceled out Galileo.. Outcome = zero advancement in human understanding.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc[/ame]

 

[sangha]

Sure. Based on the formula 2 + 2 = 4 2 is both the value of Faith and Reason. Faith cancels out reason so it must have a value of -2. Conversely Reason also cancels out Faith so the integers are interchangeable. 4 is an impossible outcome because it implies a whole value of the sum of two opposing directions.

That makes a certain kind a sense.....nonsense

I think the formula plays out well in real world. Take the case of Galileo. Faith was challenged ...faith canceled out Galileo.. Outcome = zero advancement in human understanding.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc[/ame]

At least you're consistent in your logic. That's more than I can say for the wingnuts

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.

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

Howso?

He very nearly made what would've been one of the greatest theoretical predictions of all time: an expanding (or contracting) universe. However, he didn't trust the equations of general relativity and believed they should allow for a static universe. So he altered them to satisfy the common wisdom of his day, shortly before Edwin Hubble toppled that common wisdom forever. However, now it seems those dark energy observations mentioned above might be a shadow of Einstein's altered equation. Seems the guy can't lose.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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

When faced with overwhelming evidence that refutes unsupported faith, the answer always comes back to some celestial being trying to trick humanity. Interesting how much effort heaven and hell put into keeping us fooled.

as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:

Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.

Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.

So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?

well said

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.

Actually that graphic is larger than it needs to be. It can be distilled down to "Atheism: show me the proof"

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.

Dave. You're wrong. You know you're wrong and so does everyone else. Backpedaling now doesn't offer you the ability to squirm out of being wrong. At best it just pushes off where you were wrong to a different statement.

For example: "I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species." This is still wrong. You can't point out three such proponents, which goes to show that either you didn't know the boundaries of evolution and are now backpedaling to project your lack of knowledge onto a some phantom group you just made up, or made a horrible horrible mistype and don't want to admit that you just said something wrong. Either way, you said something wrong.

Do I need to make a ven diagram here? Evolution contradicts the creationist model. The creationist model does not contradict evolution because the overlap of these concepts are not congruent.

Evolution Theory Overview

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)

The often seen quote above by famous geneticist Dobzhansky elegantly captures the paramount importance of evolution. Stated differently, evolution is the single organizing principle of all the biological sciences. The terms evolution and natural selection are often used synonymously, though natural selection itself is but one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Yet, and paradoxically, evolution is either misunderstood or even adamantly denied by a large proportion of the public.

Darwin's Observations and Conceptualizations
Darwin's observations during his travels ultimately led him to four fundamental concepts that he elegantly put forth on his 1859 book, Origin of Species:

Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability).
Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Darwin's conceptualization of natural selection was a remarkable accomplishment in the mid-19th century, and Darwin was right, within the limits of the science at the time. However, that Darwin's natural selection is perhaps too easy to understand led to misunderstandings such as "survival of the fittest", and its sad extrapolation to social Darwinism. Darwin's natural selection could not incorporate gene inheritance or random gene mutation because genes had not yet been discovered. Modern evolutionary theory describes decent with modification at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwin described evolution at the level of organisms, speciation and individuals.

"From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so they can be classed in groups under groups." Charles Darwin

Evolution and the Tree of Life

The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
Decent with modification, or evolution, is often described by the so-called tree of life. A tree is inherently hierarchical, as is the great "Tree of Life". Its boughs are analogous to the higher Linnean rankings, i.e., the domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc. Smaller branches correspond to middle rankings, i.e., the orders, families and genera. At the end of the many branches are the twigs, the uncountable species, some 99% of which are extinct. The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree; he elegantly wrote:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Charles Darwin, 1859).

The eye of the Trilobite was already highly sophisticated by Cambrian time - yet, it was hardly a perfect design - rather, it resulted from the tinkering of natural selection on the genomic ingredients that already existed.
Misconceptions about evolution
Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms - this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.
EVOLUTION

NO ONE READS THIS. Not even the people who would probably agree with it. Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.

 

[rdean]

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.

We know when something exists when we can "measure" it. Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.

The same with Dark Matter. We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect. The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.

Scientists "live" for questions. They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day. The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons. They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".

Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News

 

[Intense]

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.

Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.

And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.

They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.

Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.

Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.

Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance. Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.

 

[Intense]

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

When faced with overwhelming evidence that refutes unsupported faith, the answer always comes back to some celestial being trying to trick humanity. Interesting how much effort heaven and hell put into keeping us fooled.

as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:

Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.

Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.

So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?

well said


Actually that graphic is larger than it needs to be. It can be distilled down to "Atheism: show me the proof"

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.

Dave. You're wrong. You know you're wrong and so does everyone else. Backpedaling now doesn't offer you the ability to squirm out of being wrong. At best it just pushes off where you were wrong to a different statement.

For example: "I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species." This is still wrong. You can't point out three such proponents, which goes to show that either you didn't know the boundaries of evolution and are now backpedaling to project your lack of knowledge onto a some phantom group you just made up, or made a horrible horrible mistype and don't want to admit that you just said something wrong. Either way, you said something wrong.

Do I need to make a ven diagram here? Evolution contradicts the creationist model. The creationist model does not contradict evolution because the overlap of these concepts are not congruent.

Evolution Theory Overview

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)

The often seen quote above by famous geneticist Dobzhansky elegantly captures the paramount importance of evolution. Stated differently, evolution is the single organizing principle of all the biological sciences. The terms evolution and natural selection are often used synonymously, though natural selection itself is but one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates. The mechanisms of evolution are ubiquitous and not limited to biology, and as a theory, evolution is as validated as Newton's Laws of Motion, and clearly as important for the understanding of the physical world. Yet, and paradoxically, evolution is either misunderstood or even adamantly denied by a large proportion of the public.

Darwin's Observations and Conceptualizations
Darwin's observations during his travels ultimately led him to four fundamental concepts that he elegantly put forth on his 1859 book, Origin of Species:

Adaptation: all organisms adapt to their environments.
Variation (or diversity): organisms exhibit variability in their traits (in modern terms, genotype variability determines the phenotype variability).
Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
Reproductive success: Organisms exhibit variability in adaptation to environment; hence some will survive and reproduce better than others, a process known as natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". In reality, such attributes as speed, size or strength is only more fit for survival if it endows the organism with a reproductive advantage in the existing enviroment. Those organisms best adapted to the environment will have a greater chance of surviving and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Darwin's conceptualization of natural selection was a remarkable accomplishment in the mid-19th century, and Darwin was right, within the limits of the science at the time. However, that Darwin's natural selection is perhaps too easy to understand led to misunderstandings such as "survival of the fittest", and its sad extrapolation to social Darwinism. Darwin's natural selection could not incorporate gene inheritance or random gene mutation because genes had not yet been discovered. Modern evolutionary theory describes decent with modification at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwin described evolution at the level of organisms, speciation and individuals.

"From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so they can be classed in groups under groups." Charles Darwin

Evolution and the Tree of Life

The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
Decent with modification, or evolution, is often described by the so-called tree of life. A tree is inherently hierarchical, as is the great "Tree of Life". Its boughs are analogous to the higher Linnean rankings, i.e., the domains, kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc. Smaller branches correspond to middle rankings, i.e., the orders, families and genera. At the end of the many branches are the twigs, the uncountable species, some 99% of which are extinct. The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree; he elegantly wrote:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Charles Darwin, 1859).

The eye of the Trilobite was already highly sophisticated by Cambrian time - yet, it was hardly a perfect design - rather, it resulted from the tinkering of natural selection on the genomic ingredients that already existed.
Misconceptions about evolution
Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms - this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.
EVOLUTION

NO ONE READS THIS. Not even the people who would probably agree with it. Please don't copy and paste pages of other's work.

I think it best if you focus on your own argument, and not worry yourself with me or what you think my motives are.

 

[rdean]

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?

God put bones in the ground to show us what animals on other planets look like.

Actually, many creationists believe that man and Tyrannosaurus Rex lived peacefully, side by side, until Noah's Great Flood and then the world changed so much, they couldn't live anymore and died out. They believe that many of the dinosaur eggs collected didn't survive the voyage.

 

[rdean]

as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:

Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.

Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.

So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?

Faith is the opposite of science. Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.

 

[Intense]

as a reborn, deeply god loving christian i have this thoughts about this issue:

Faith is faith and Science is science. The one fills my heart, gives me hope, let me believe, makes me happy, helps me to become a good man, helps me to see others suffering and shows my ways to help them. THe other gives me the tools and instruments for doing it. The one i believe, the other i know.

Science is alwasy provable. Faith never, anyelse it´s not faith but knowing. I don´t need to trust in science. If a scientific method works, then it works. THere´s no need of trusting anymore. But faith works only with trust.

So i don´t have any problem to accept the evolutionary theories. It´s just how God made it, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway how it happened, the world is here. Don´t we have more urgent questions than this?

Faith is the opposite of science. Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.

That truth applies to both Religion and Science.

 

[rdean]

Your ignorance is impressive! That kind of stupid takes hard work!

I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

 

[Sunni Man]

Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.

So dinosaurs went extinct because they were true believers??

 

[rdean]

Science is very much a religion.

The lecture podium is the same thing as a preachers pulpit.

Science has it's venerated saints; Einstein, Madam Currie, etc.

And is extremely rigid in it's dogma.

And if a scientist disagrees with current scientific beliefs.

They will be shunned or even excommunicated from the scientific community as heretics.

Plus being a scientist requires more faith than many religions.

Belief in evolution would be an example of extreme faith in the unknown.

In one short post, I counted 14 outright lies. Amazing.
You sir, belong in Afghanistan. There, you can practice your ignorance, maybe even in peace. Living in the top scientific country in the world is definitely the wrong place for you. You can't possibly be happy.

 

[rdean]

Belief for the sake of belief is a short road to extinction.

So dinosaurs went extinct because they were true believers??

Why do you believe they went "extinct"? Or do you believe they ever existed?

 

[sangha]

For example: "I criticized some evolution proponents for thinking evolution explains the origin of species." This is still wrong. You can't point out three such proponents, which goes to show that either you didn't know the boundaries of evolution and are now backpedaling to project your lack of knowledge onto a some phantom group you just made up, or made a horrible horrible mistype and don't want to admit that you just said something wrong. Either way, you said something wrong.

It's obvious that Dave lied about "sciencers" beliefs. He made it up to hide his lack of knowledge.

That's why Dave will never post a list of these mythical sciencers who believe that evolution explains the origin of life.