Science Is/As A Religion

[PoliticalChic]

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?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.…humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

 

[Ropey]

I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood. Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.

Science calls it a "Unified Field Theory. The three large religions call it G-d.

I believe there is a nexus between the two. We will know one day.

 

[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?

Google: pseudogene; single nucleotide polymorphism

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans.

According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

Your trolling's out of date

Also, two species can become one. It seems to have happened several times with a few more exotic oceanic species.

Then, of course, there are mitochondria...

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones.

If they did, that would be evidence against the theory.

This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

You'd have to know something of Earth's history and the environment at the time to grasp the 'Cambrian Explosion'

Hint: it was shortly after Snowball Earth and before most environmental/evolutionary niches had been filled


Your trolling used to be better

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see the two as entwined. Science seeks, by measurement and technical understanding, to explain that which is not known or well understood. Religion does the same. Different paths, but the end result, (to my view) is the one power.

Science calls it a "Unified Field Theory. The three large religions call it G-d.

I believe there is a nexus between the two. We will know one day.

I can accept that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Like Lutefisk... I choose not to partake of science as religion. And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.

 

[Greenbeard]

And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.

Death: When next we meet, the hour will strike for you and your friends.
Antonius Block: And you will reveal your secrets?
Death: I have no secrets.
Block: So you know nothing?
Death: I am unknowing.

 

[Madeline]

Political Chic wrote in part:

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…

Dahlin', who has touted science as "superior to faith"? Seems to me, all who've written that they accept science have said that faith serves different needs.

Can we see some quotes?

 

[sangha]

Another cut and paste job from PC, who can't make an argument using her own words.

It will be fun to watch her "refute" the science that other posters post with her childish one line insults devoid of any scientific facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Google: pseudogene; single nucleotide polymorphism

You post this all the time like it proves something. What do you think it proves?

 

[JBeukema]

Like Lutefisk... I choose not to partake of science as religion. And you're right, that once death takes us, the truth will be known regardless of your faith.

There are preachers of death: and the earth is full of those to whom desistance from life must be preached.
Full is the earth of the superfluous; marred is life by the many-too-many. May they be decoyed out of this life by the "life eternal"!
"The yellow ones": so are called the preachers of death, or "the black ones." But I will show them unto you in other colours besides.
There are the terrible ones who carry about in themselves the beast of prey, and have no choice except lusts or self-laceration. And even their lusts are self-laceration.
They have not yet become men, those terrible ones: may they preach desistance from life, and pass away themselves!
There are the spiritually consumptive ones: hardly are they born when they begin to die, and long for doctrines of lassitude and renunciation.
They would fain be dead, and we should approve of their wish! Let us beware of awakening those dead ones, and of damaging those living coffins!
They meet an invalid, or an old man, or a corpse—and immediately they say: "Life is refuted!"
But they only are refuted, and their eye, which seeth only one aspect of existence.
Shrouded in thick melancholy, and eager for the little casualties that bring death: thus do they wait, and clench their teeth.
Or else, they grasp at sweetmeats, and mock at their childishness thereby: they cling to their straw of life, and mock at their still clinging to it.
Their wisdom speaketh thus: "A fool, he who remaineth alive; but so far are we fools! And that is the foolishest thing in life!"
"Life is only suffering": so say others, and lie not. Then see to it that ye cease! See to it that the life ceaseth which is only suffering!
And let this be the teaching of your virtue: "Thou shalt slay thyself! Thou shalt steal away from thyself!"—
"Lust is sin,"—so say some who preach death—"let us go apart and beget no children!"
"Giving birth is troublesome,"—say others—"why still give birth? One beareth only the unfortunate!" And they also are preachers of death.
"Pity is necessary,"—so saith a third party. "Take what I have! Take what I am! So much less doth life bind me!"
Were they consistently pitiful, then would they make their neighbours sick of life. To be wicked—that would be their true goodness.
But they want to be rid of life; what care they if they bind others still faster with their chains and gifts!—
And ye also, to whom life is rough labour and disquiet, are ye not very tired of life? Are ye not very ripe for the sermon of death?
All ye to whom rough labour is dear, and the rapid, new, and strange—ye put up with yourselves badly; your diligence is flight, and the will to self-forgetfulness.
If ye believed more in life, then would ye devote yourselves less to the momentary. But for waiting, ye have not enough of capacity in you- nor even for idling!
Everywhere resoundeth the voices of those who preach death; and the earth is full of those to whom death hath to be preached.
Or "life eternal"; it is all the same to me—if only they pass away quickly!—
Thus spake Zarathustra.

 

[HUGGY]

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?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.…humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject. The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors. They had different ..more crude tools and weapons. Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment. In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.

 

[Madeline]

 

[daveman]

Thus spake Zarathustra.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

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

 

[José]

Originally posted by Daveman
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.

Fair enough, Daveman.

The origin of life remains to this day one of the biggest Achiles' heel in evolutionary theory. Any self-respecting biologist will readily admit that science does not have any solid explanation for abiogenesis (how life sprang from brute matter).

If the OP was worth a roll of toilet paper scientists would have already "filled this gap" with a pseudo-scientific/superstitious explanation instead of admitting the fact that their best attempts at explaining the issue amount to little more than scientific speculation.

Now that would be science mimicking religion!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.…humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

It is good to see you making an attempt to understand this subject. The Neanderthals had a different diet than the humans that are almost entirely our ancestors. They had different ..more crude tools and weapons. Their demise was more a function of their inability to feed themselves as conditions changed in their environment. In short they were "dumber" and less able to adapt.

Huggy, Huggy, Huggy...

the OP was aimed squarely at you...and designed to point out how similar religion and what you deem a rational belief based on evidence, science, are!

You accept the evolution concept, but scientists who cited the Neanderthal as a pre-human, a step in the evolution of mankind are proven wrong, you carry on as 'well, yes, see- the genome evidence is now really, really right...'

And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...

did you see the quote from Dawkins?

How about one from Darwin himself:

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species: Chapter IX.-ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD - Free Online Library


"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Dr. Nancy Pearcy, "Saving Leonardo"


Do you have an explanation?


No matter, Huggy, glad to see you embrace faith in this manner.

 

[José]

Originally posted by PoliticalChic
And the missing transitional forms that would have been real physical evidence of the theory don't exist...

Of course they don't "exist".

Everytime clear, undisputed examples of transitional species like Archaeopteryx are unearthed they are immediately dismissed by creationists as not being really "transitional".