Do you believe that science is a religion?

[River Jordan]

It is fair to say that the word theory can be used in many contexts .... some correct and some not correct.

Yep, and this..."they present a theory .... which amounts to a "belief system"" in a discussion of scientific theories is wrong.

But my issue has nothing to do with the word theory

So we agree that in science the word "theory" refers to a well-tested hypothesis that provides an explanatory framework for a set of facts.

.... the problem is the mis-use of the word evolution by folks like you Jordan River

let me give you an example ....

You have observed the goatsbeard plant produce a unique new plant within the goatsbeard family .... no problem with that ..... then you call it proof of evolution

It is "proof of evolution" because it's evolution right before our eyes. It's also "proof" that evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to generate new species.

I prefer to call it proof that the goatsbeard plant has the inherent genetics to reproduce a new strain previously unseen.

I'll ask you again....if two populations from the same genus that are physically unable to reproduce with each other, but fully capable of reproducing on their own are not two distinct species, what exactly is your criteria for "new species"?

That would not really be a problem except you also use the same word (evolution) to say it gives you proof that in 3.8 billion years that goatsbeard plant could potentially become your little sister.

Well I suppose if you could find an example of a scientist proposing that "a goatsbeard plant became a human" you'd have a point. But I doubt you can, which means you're guilty of the fallacy of argument via straw man.

Usually people construct straw man versions of what they're arguing against because they are unable to address that thing as it actually exists. So they make up absurd straw man versions, attack that, and declare themselves victorious.

It is not me who intentionally mis-uses words ... it is the evolutionist who does .

Sorry, but you've not demonstrated that at all. The only person here who's misused terms is the one who said, "they present a theory .... which amounts to a "belief system""

And the evolutionist uses thousands of side arguments about words (etc) as a distraction when he is flat out asked if he believes his little sister originated from a vegetable or ape in Africa .

There's that straw man fallacy again. Sad.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

The evolutionist claims that all life forms have a common ancestor

That implies the evolutionist thinks the goatsbeard plant is related to his little sister.

When you ask the evolutionist for an explanation of how that came about he replies ....

By "random chance" over "billions of years" is how some of those ancestors became plants and some of those ancestors became our little sister.

However , there is no such entity as "chance" manipulating anything or causing anything to change . Never has been.

And by waiting for a long period of time (billions of years) does not explain it either

That amounts to saying you can kiss a frog and it will turn into a prince. All you have to do is wait a really long time .

In fairness I added the word "kiss the common ancestor" .... an evolutionist would never actually say that.

The evolutionist will say just leave the common ancestor alone (no kiss) .... and some of them will become frogs and some will become princes.

For some reason I have difficulty accepting that theory.

 

[IBeMe]

snr5557:
In some ways I do, in others I don't agree. Evolution isn't a faith, people have observed and tested evolution and have found the results consistent enough to be taught in a classroom.

Creationism cannot be tested in any way, so it should not be in classrooms (unless it's a religion class) at all, regardless of whether evolution is being taught or not.

That is absolutely FALSE!

The "Quantum Theory" is a real scientific theory that welcomes scientific opposition and tons of money is spent to prove it right or wrong.

"Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations."( wikipedia )

That's real science!

If the real truth of the "Theory of Evolution" were taught, it would be fine. (should be taught in Mythology)

There hasn't been a workable theory of how life could exist without God for decades.

Is that taught in schools?

If it were science, why would you hide the truth?

An Exobiological Strategy for Mars Exploration - Ames Research Center - January 1, 1995

... prebiotic chemistry and conditions on the early Earth ... Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based. ... New theories are emerging, diverse viewpoints are finding encouragement, and there are several competing hypotheses regarding prebiotic chemical systems. New data, new observations, and new techniques are required.

Dr. Michael H. Carr, USGS; Dr. Benton Clark, Martin-Marietta Aerospace; Dr. David J. DesMarais, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. Donald L. DeVincenzi, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. Jack D. Farmer, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. John M. Hayes, Indiana University; Dr. Heinrich Holland, Harvard University; Dr. Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado; Dr. Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute; Dr. John F. Kerridge, University of California, San Diego & NASA HQ (chair); Dr. Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University; Dr. Andrew H. Knoll, Harvard University; Dr. Gene D. McDonald, Cornell University; Dr. Christopher P. McKay, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. Michael A. Meyer, NASA HQ; Dr. Kenneth H. Nealson, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Everett L. Shock, Washington University; Dr. David M. Ward, Montana State University; Dr. Carl Sagan, Cornell University, provided helpful advice.

Ever hear of this guy, Dr. Carl Sagan?

_______________________________

That was 1995 - No workable theory of how life could exist without God.
_______________________________

Flash forward to 2012
_______________________________

"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..." NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay

Currently, "there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem".

_______________________________


.

 

[aspen]

faith is not exclusive to religion. Everything worth doing involves faith.

 

[IBeMe]

Which is Science ... Which is Religion?

(Quantum Mechanics)

The theory is challenged and new directions are welcomed and expected.

“In the final showdown between quantum mechanics and gravity, our understanding of space and time will be completely changed,” Milburn said. “We’re hoping these experiments will lead the way.”

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131107-physicists-eye-quantum-gravity-interface/

_______________________________


(Theory of Evolution)

Theory never challenged and research done to counter any opposition.

Harvard's: 'Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative'

"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

Massive project with the goal; explain how life "could have taken place with no divine intervention."

_______________________________


One project is seeking to learn.

The other project is trying to disprove the Bible.

_______________________________

.

 

[River Jordan]

The evolutionist claims that all life forms have a common ancestor

That's correct.

That implies the evolutionist thinks the goatsbeard plant is related to his little sister.

Yes, but "related to" is not at all the same thing as "turned into", as you stated earlier. You understand that, right?

When you ask the evolutionist for an explanation of how that came about he replies ....

By "random chance" over "billions of years" is how some of those ancestors became plants and some of those ancestors became our little sister.

Mutations are indeed random, but their effects are then subject to the non-random filter of natural selection. Thus, the overall process is not "random chance". If you're truly interested in this subject, I strongly suggest studying from a reliable scientific source rather than erecting a continuous line of straw men.

However , there is no such entity as "chance" manipulating anything or causing anything to change . Never has been.

Do you believe mutations are not random?

That amounts to saying you can kiss a frog and it will turn into a prince. All you have to do is wait a really long time .

In fairness I added the word "kiss the common ancestor" .... an evolutionist would never actually say that.

The evolutionist will say just leave the common ancestor alone (no kiss) .... and some of them will become frogs and some will become princes.

For some reason I have difficulty accepting that theory.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious here that the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.

IBeMe,

The origin of the first life is not part of evolutionary theory. The study of the origin of life is called "abiogenesis". So repeat this to yourself as much as needed....abiogenesis is not evolution, abiogenesis is not evolution, abiogenesis is not evolution.

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: The study of the origin of life is called "abiogenesis".

I realize there are special instructions all over the Internet to try and distance the Theory of Evolution from the embarrassment of having no explanation to explain how life could exist without God.

However, real scientist aren't that silly.

NASA's Exobiology program... origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe.
The Cosmic Evolution of the Biogenic Compounds
Prebiotic Evolution
The Early Evolution of Life
The Evolution of Advanced Life

From these considerations, it follows that we can divide the scientific issues involved in the exobiological exploration of Mars into three general categories: (1) To what extent did prebiotic chemical evolution proceed on Mars? (2) If chemical evolution occurred, did it lead to synthesis of replicating molecules, i.e., life, which subsequently became extinct? (3) If replicating systems arose on Mars, do they persist anywhere on Mars today?

These are real Scientist, who signed the paper.

Dr. Michael H. Carr, USGS; Dr. Benton Clark, Martin-Marietta Aerospace; Dr. David J. DesMarais, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. Donald L. DeVincenzi, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. Jack D. Farmer, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. John M. Hayes, Indiana University; Dr. Heinrich Holland, Harvard University; Dr. Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado; Dr. Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute; Dr. John F. Kerridge, University of California, San Diego & NASA HQ (chair); Dr. Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University; Dr. Andrew H. Knoll, Harvard University; Dr. Gene D. McDonald, Cornell University; Dr. Christopher P. McKay, NASA Ames Research Center; Dr. Michael A. Meyer, NASA HQ; Dr. Kenneth H. Nealson, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Everett L. Shock, Washington University; Dr. David M. Ward, Montana State University; Dr. Carl Sagan, Cornell University, provided helpful advice.


Perhaps you could call Harvard and the Boston Globe and enlighten them....

Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff | August 14, 2005

Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are central to the debate over the theory of evolution.

Real newspapers aren't so silly...


.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Mutations are indeed random, but their effects are then subject to the non-random filter of natural selection. Thus, the overall process is not "random chance". If you're truly interested in this subject, I strongly suggest studying from a reliable scientific source rather than erecting a continuous line of straw men.

.
Now you have brought mutations into the explanation of evolution ..... the problem with mutations is they are always harmful .... they are defects ..... they are never "improvements"

On that same subject the evolutionist and scientists will claim ... "everything is evolving to higher and better and improved forms"

Yet those same scientists will admit the whole universe is aging , and slowing down , and wearing out , and burning out .

And those same scientists will admit there is abundant evidence showing huge extinctions of species on earth in the past ..... and not one single piece of evidence showing any brand new life forms showing up in the world today.

 

[snr5557]

.
Now you have brought mutations into the explanation of evolution ..... the problem with mutations is they are always harmful .... they are defects ..... they are never "improvements"

Can you give me a credible source that supports this please? That every single mutation that has ever happened is a harmful defect.

On that same subject the evolutionist and scientists will claim ... "everything is evolving to higher and better and improved forms"


Yet those same scientists will admit the whole universe is aging , and slowing down , and wearing out , and burning out .

There are scientists saying that the entire universe is burning out? Please provide the link to a credible source please. From what I've heard is that the universe is continuing to expand.


And those same scientists will admit there is abundant evidence showing huge extinctions of species on earth in the past ..... and not one single piece of evidence showing any brand new life forms showing up in the world today.

River has showed us an example from a credible source, so that is a single piece of evidence. You could go and reread it if you want.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious here that the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.

Not at all ... I have no problems with science

My problem is with the evolutionist who adds the magic formula of "millions of years" to infer that the frog will become a prince

The magic formula of millions and millions of years is in every paragraph of evolutionary theory

Remove that magical formula and the whole theory collapses.

And if you think I am just a redneck coming up with crude things such as frogs becoming princes .... I can assure you that is not the case whatsoever.

Here is an evolutionist who says my grandma came from a dinosaur.

Prof. Gaines, chair of the geology department at Pomona College in California. “We’re understanding the beginning of our family tree. It’s grandma in here.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-search-of-old-life/article13700672/

 

[KingJ]

Do you believe that science is a religion?

Please reply with your answer.

A better question is how confident are you that scripture is the truth? How confident are you in your Christian faith? What is needed to build your confidence in Christianity / bible authenticity?

What we see here on this thread is the difference between those that have built their house on sand and those on rock.

We can look at science with either Christian or non-Christian glasses on. Science will NEVER explain the origin of the first particle. So there is no point in comparing it with religion.

Evolution is not a typical scientific theory. A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. That is why gravity was a theory. Darwin saw adaptation not evolution.

Evolution is hence a belief system. The only evidence of its existence is in a dictionary.

 

[IBeMe]

Arnie Manitoba:
The magic formula of millions and millions of years is in every paragraph of evolutionary theory

Remove that magical formula and the whole theory collapses.

The theory has already clasped due to the advancement of science.

At one time, the magic 'millions and millions' of years seemed to hide all problems.

Not any more.

A three year old child has about one quadrillion synapses in their brain.

Each synapses consist of various pieces of living machinery engineered down to the atom level able to process molecules, in some cases a lone atom, as information transmission signals.

So we're talking, quadrillions of little living pieces of machinery.

1,000,000 = million
1,000,000,000 = billion
1,000,000,000,000,000 = quadrillion

Note: this doesn't approach the level of complexity we're dealing with. Each synapses has to be able to make a connection and pass information. In some cases the piece of information is a lone atom. So, we have little pumps and gates engineered to handle lone atoms. Then, it has to know what to do with the information.

And, let's don't forget; we all start out as one cell. That one lone cell has to know how to build one quadrillion synapses containing all these little machines which also have to be supplied with an energy source.


Evolutionary scientist have no explanation of how life could exist without God.


.

 

[River Jordan]

IBeMe,

Please explain to me then how if God created the first self-replicators on earth, or if they were placed here by aliens, or if they arose naturally, that would change the theory of evolution.

Arnie,

Now you have brought mutations into the explanation of evolution ..... the problem with mutations is they are always harmful .... they are defects ..... they are never "improvements"

Well that's demonstrably false.

CLICK HERE to read about a mutation that increases life span and inhibits tumor growth in C. elegans.

CLICK HERE to read about mutations that lead to increased swimming ability ("hyperswimmers") in bacteria.

CLICK HERE for a list of articles about mutations that lead to resistance in HIV.

We could go on and on and on, but the point is made. Once again, another creationist talking point is just plain wrong.

On that same subject the evolutionist and scientists will claim ... "everything is evolving to higher and better and improved forms"

Yet those same scientists will admit the whole universe is aging , and slowing down , and wearing out , and burning out .

And those same scientists will admit there is abundant evidence showing huge extinctions of species on earth in the past ..... and not one single piece of evidence showing any brand new life forms showing up in the world today.

Now you have brought mutations into the explanation of evolution ..... the problem with mutations is they are always harmful .... they are defects ..... they are never "improvements"

Except you've already been given an example of the evolution of a new species, and now once again we see that one of your arguments doesn't match up with reality.

It's obvious that the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.

 

[aspen]

Has anyone changed their mind, yet?

 

[River Jordan]

Evolution is not a typical scientific theory. A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. That is why gravity was a theory. Darwin saw adaptation not evolution.

Um.....that would be very, very wrong. What Darwin proposed was a mechanism to explain how evolution occurs. He did that by proposing natural selection, which it turns out is not only directly observable, but is quantifiable as well.

As far as evolution and common descent having "observational consequences", they meet that criterion in spades. For example, specific evolutionary relationships predict the existence of specific fossils in specific strata (e.g. what led to the discovery of Tiktaalik). It also predicts what we shouldn't find, like transitionals between distantly related taxa, such as horses and birds, or frogs and insects. Throw in specific predictions about genetic relatedness too, and you end up with....

....yet another creationist talking point that is demonstrably false.

Evolution is hence a belief system. The only evidence of its existence is in a dictionary.

Given that your basis for that conclusion is demonstrably false....well, that should tell you what that conclusion's worth.

Has anyone changed their mind, yet?

If one creationist changes his mind, I'll be shocked. It's obvious from their posts that they don't have a clue about the actual science (I mean, almost everything they've said on the subject is wrong), which makes it clear that their position on the issue is based in something else.

IMO it's that bizarre fundamentalist belief that if evolution is real, then the Bible is wrong and Jesus must therefore be a fable. And as long as they hold on to that, nothing will ever change their minds. You could take 'em on a time travel trip and show them every evolutionary step they don't think happened, and they'd still deny it and probably chalk it up to a satanic trick or something. <_<

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: Please explain to me then how if God created the first self-replicators on earth, or if they were placed here by aliens, or if they arose naturally, that would change the theory of evolution.

straw-man multi-choice?

Evolutionary scientist have no explanation of how life could exist without God.

"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..." ( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay; 06/20/12 )

Real Evolutionary Scientist have to be realistic and deal with reality.

McKay has done research on planetary atmospheres, particularly the atmospheres of Titan and Mars, and on the origin and evolution of life. He is a co-investigator on the Huygens probe, the Mars Phoenix lander, and the Mars Science Laboratory. He also performed field research on extremophiles, in such locations as Death Valley, the Atacama Desert, Axel Heiberg Island, and ice-covered lakes in Antarctica. McKay is the Principal Investigator of the proposed Icebreaker Life astrobiology mission to Mars.
He is a member of the board of directors of the Planetary Society and also works with the Mars Society, and has written and spoken on space exploration and terraforming. He is also an adviser for the Microbes Mind Forum.

.

 

[River Jordan]

IBeMe,

Pick any origins of the first self-replicators scenario you want, and then explain to me how that changes the theory of evolution.

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: Pick any origins of the first self-replicators scenario you want, and then explain to me how that changes the theory of evolution.

I'll let Big Boy Benner answer that question...

Steven Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is considered one of the world's top chemists in origins-of-life research. "It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now."

Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution
By Gareth Cook, Boston Globe Staff | August 14, 2005



According to Big Boy Benner, it's such a problem that, if solved, it will be remembered 100 years from now.


Steven Benner is a Distinguished Fellow in The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, which he founded after serving on the faculty at Harvard, the ETH Zurich, and the University of Florida. His research seeks to combine two traditions in science, one from natural history and the other from the physical sciences. In making this combination, the Benner laboratory has been instrumental in the initiation and development of many fields, including synthetic biology, paleogenetics, evolutionary bioinformatics, planetary biology, and astrobiology. His laboratory was the first to redesign DNA to expand the genetic alphabet, resurrect genes and proteins from extinct organisms, organize whole genome databases according to their evolutionary history, and successfully predict how proteins fold. In addition to reshaping our view of what life is and how it is intimately connected with its underlying chemistry, his work has had impact on commerce and the public. Dr. Benner has helped launch several biotechnology companies and led to products that personalize the care of 400,000 patients each year suffering from with HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C infections. His work also guides NASA missions seeking alien life. His most recent book is entitled Life, the Universe, and the Scientific Method.

.

 

[River Jordan]

I'll let Big Boy Benner answer that question...

Steven Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is considered one of the world's top chemists in origins-of-life research. "It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now."

Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution
By Gareth Cook, Boston Globe Staff | August 14, 2005



According to Big Boy Benner, it's such a problem that, if solved, it will be remembered 100 years from now.


Steven Benner is a Distinguished Fellow in The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, which he founded after serving on the faculty at Harvard, the ETH Zurich, and the University of Florida. His research seeks to combine two traditions in science, one from natural history and the other from the physical sciences. In making this combination, the Benner laboratory has been instrumental in the initiation and development of many fields, including synthetic biology, paleogenetics, evolutionary bioinformatics, planetary biology, and astrobiology. His laboratory was the first to redesign DNA to expand the genetic alphabet, resurrect genes and proteins from extinct organisms, organize whole genome databases according to their evolutionary history, and successfully predict how proteins fold. In addition to reshaping our view of what life is and how it is intimately connected with its underlying chemistry, his work has had impact on commerce and the public. Dr. Benner has helped launch several biotechnology companies and led to products that personalize the care of 400,000 patients each year suffering from with HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C infections. His work also guides NASA missions seeking alien life. His most recent book is entitled Life, the Universe, and the Scientific Method.

.

None of that answers my question. Again, pick any origins of the first self-replicators scenario you want, and then explain to me how that changes the theory of evolution.

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: Pick any origins of the first self-replicators scenario you want, and then explain to me how that changes the theory of evolution.

Big Boy Benner says it's a BIG problem.

If you ain't hearing Big Boy Benner, one of the world's leading evolutionary scientist, then you ain't hearing.

Why should I waste my time?

.