Do you believe that science is a religion?

[River Jordan]

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?

.

You're not understanding. I agree that it's a mystery and that at best all the origins researchers have right now are some loose hypotheses and a handful of experimental leads, but nothing resembling a complete theory. That's what Benner is saying, and I agree with him.

My point is that no matter how the first self-replicators came to exist on earth, it won't affect the theory of evolution. Universal common ancestry won't change, evolutionary relationships between taxa won't change, the mechanisms of selection, drift, mutation, migration, etc. won't change.

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan : My point is that no matter how...

Only one "how" left standing...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Moving TOE over to the mythology shelves.

All the kings horses and all the kings men are trying to put it back together again...

Still waiting to hear back from them.

.

 

[KingJ]

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,

As you would say ''oh mother''. Darwin saw adaptation and assumed its by natural selection.

which it turns out is not only directly observable, but is quantifiable as well.

As you would say 'oh mother'...you really still believe in natural selection? Have you not read a single counter argument to it? Your posts have no objective thought, they are nothing more then a googled advertisment for evolution.

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.


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

The Tiktaalik is NOT an observational consequence unless you already believe in evolution! Oh mother...

 

[River Jordan]

Only one "how" left standing...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Moving TOE over to the mythology shelves.

All the kings horses and all the kings men are trying to put it back together again...

Still waiting to hear back from them.

First, you're not even making sense. Apparently you're arguing that if no complete theory for the origin of life comes about, then the entire theory of evolution falls? So if God personally placed the first simple self-replicating protocells on a primordial earth, then no populations evolve ever?

You probably need to think about that some more. :wacko:

Also, you'd better be careful invoking that God of the Gaps argument so forcefully. History has shown that usually when anti-science people such as yourself crow "You'll never be able to figure that out", they're eventually proved wrong. And by your own terms, if no full explanation for the existence of the first life is evidence for God, then the development of such an explanation must therefore be evidence against God. And you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

As you would say ''oh mother''. Darwin saw adaptation and assumed its by natural selection.

I'll ask you the same question no one seems to want to answer: How do you know? Show me the part in Darwin's writings where natural selection is just "assumed".

As you would say 'oh mother'...you really still believe in natural selection? Have you not read a single counter argument to it? Your posts have no objective thought, they are nothing more then a googled advertisment for evolution.

Seriously? You actually deny that natural selection exists? Something that happens right in front of our faces every single day? The entire reason we need a new influenza vaccine every year? Why we need new antibiotics all the time? Why farmers have to use stronger pesticides?

I mean.....wow. If this is the sort of denial of reality that you tie directly to Christianity, I shudder to think how many people you've forever tainted against the faith....how many have walked away from you shaking their heads in disbelief.

The Tiktaalik is NOT an observational consequence unless you already believe in evolution! Oh mother...

This is what creationists usually do. You claimed that evolution and common descent "have no observational consequences". I provide a link that describes how the evolution of tetrapods from fish necessitates that there be fossils of organisms that have a mixture of fish and tetrapod traits, and that paleontologists not only predicted the existence of this creature, but when it must have existed and where its remains would be found. IOW, exactly what you claimed can't be.

Your response? "No it isn't"

That's exactly the sort of denial of reality that I guess you have to engage in to be a creationist such as yourself.

 

[aspen]

yeah, i agree - when you back yourself into a corner by making belief in God contingient on a literal interpretation of the creation story or some obscure proficy or the specific hour of Jesus's return, i think you faith becomes brittle and reality is tossed out the window - people will go to any lengths to meet the conditions they have set up to preserve their belief in God. It almost seems like a weird sort of challenge they have set up for God - as if He has to be a Literal Creationist too or His inspired Genesis account is a lie. I think God is a bit more dynamic than that, personally.

 

[KingJ]

First, you're not even making sense. Apparently you're arguing that if no complete theory for the origin of life comes about, then the entire theory of evolution falls? So if God personally placed the first simple self-replicating protocells on a primordial earth, then no populations evolve ever?

You probably need to think about that some more. :wacko:

Also, you'd better be careful invoking that God of the Gaps argument so forcefully. History has shown that usually when anti-science people such as yourself crow "You'll never be able to figure that out", they're eventually proved wrong. And by your own terms, if no full explanation for the existence of the first life is evidence for God, then the development of such an explanation must therefore be evidence against God. And you'll have no one to blame but yourself.


I'll ask you the same question no one seems to want to answer: How do you know? Show me the part in Darwin's writings where natural selection is just "assumed".

Seriously? You actually deny that natural selection exists? Something that happens right in front of our faces every single day? The entire reason we need a new influenza vaccine every year? Why we need new antibiotics all the time? Why farmers have to use stronger pesticides?

I mean.....wow. If this is the sort of denial of reality that you tie directly to Christianity, I shudder to think how many people you've forever tainted against the faith....how many have walked away from you shaking their heads in disbelief.


This is what creationists usually do. You claimed that evolution and common descent "have no observational consequences". I provide a link that describes how the evolution of tetrapods from fish necessitates that there be fossils of organisms that have a mixture of fish and tetrapod traits, and that paleontologists not only predicted the existence of this creature, but when it must have existed and where its remains would be found. IOW, exactly what you claimed can't be.

Your response? "No it isn't"

That's exactly the sort of denial of reality that I guess you have to engage in to be a creationist such as yourself.

Oh mother. You are nothing more then a brain dead evolution poster girl. When you can look objectively at findings, come back and talk. Until then I need only listen to ungodly atheists at work to hear and understand your latest belief.

 

[River Jordan]

I guess when all else fails, break out the personal attacks.

Nice job KingJ.

 

[KingJ]

I guess when all else fails, break out the personal attacks.

Nice job KingJ.

The devil shut his mouth when Jesus said ''it is written''. You keep talking, showing absolutely no respect for scripture whilst fully aware of John 1:1 and 2 Tim 3:16.

It is written that Adam was the first human and his lineage is traced to 4004 bc . It is written that mankind was created just beneath the angels. It is written that mankind was created in the image of God.

A Christian will accept this and look at science in the light of scripture. Why don't you?

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan : History has shown that usually when anti-science people such as yourself crow "You'll never be able to figure that out", they're eventually proved wrong.

Is it really necessary to resort to petty name calling?

What about Evo Devo folk's opposition to some current dictates of the Theory of Evolution? ... Is that science?

Would you consider this observation anti-science? ... While you might not agree, some consider this person an expert on the Theory of Evolution.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged ..."

.

 

[River Jordan]

A Christian will accept this and look at science in the light of scripture. Why don't you?

Because if we did that, we'd have to conclude that the earth sits on pillars, doesn't move, is orbited by the sun....

Not only that, we'd have to figure out whose interpretation of scripture should dictate how we interpret scientific data. For example, I go out and collect some data on the orbit and rotation of the earth. According to what you propose, before I can do anything with that data, I have to check with you or some other person who claims to have the authority to interpret scripture for everyone else. One person (you know who) might tell me that scripture clearly teaches a geocentric model of the universe, therefore something must be fundamentally wrong with my data. You OTOH might tell me something entirely different, and the Pope something different than that.

See the problem?

Is it really necessary to resort to petty name calling?

I didn't call anyone names. The term "anti-science" is accurate when describing young-earth creationists. In order for YEC to be true, all of the earth, cosmic, and life sciences have to be 99.99999999999% wrong.

You can't say "I reject 99.999999999% of science" and then say "but I'm not anti-science".

What about Evo Devo folk's opposition to some current dictates of the Theory of Evolution? ... Is that science?

There's an enormous difference between "We think developmental changes are more important in evolutionary theory than is currently described" and "We reject 99.999999999% of all the earth, cosmic, and life sciences".

Would you consider this observation anti-science? ... While you might not agree, some consider this person an expert on the Theory of Evolution.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged ..."

Ah yes, the creationist quote mine of Charles Darwin. I wondered who was going to do that first.

Please explain why you didn't include the rest of Darwin's material in that chapter where he answers that question.

 

[horsecamp]

no I believe evolution is a religion not science .it takes a lot of faith in Darwin's theory to believe in evolution

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Not only that, we'd have to figure out whose interpretation of scripture should dictate how we interpret scientific data.

Well ... don't we have to figure out whose interpretation of scientific data should dictate how we interpret scripture?

Or do we just go with the flow..

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: I didn't call anyone names. The term "anti-science" is accurate when describing young-earth creationists.

very childish ... but, whatever

River Jordan:
In order for YEC to be true, all of the earth, cosmic, and life sciences have to be 99.99999999999% wrong.

99.99999999999% of the earth, cosmic, and life sciences had to erase the 2'nd epoch and the beginning of the 3'rd epoch of Evolution when they found how stupid all their theories were.

Now, 99.99999999999% of the earth, cosmic, and life sciences is on standby while evolutionary scientist are desperately looking for an explanation of how life could exist without God.

So far, they don't even have a clue of where to look, or what they're looking far.

They're also looking for a way to address the disparity of a puny 3.5 billion years; compared to the unfolding complexity of Life.

There's relatively little difference between a few thousand years and 3.5 billion years compared to a 34 trillion cell individual engineered down to the atom level.

A three-year-old child has about 1 quadrillion synapses.

A DNA sample the size of your thumb could store as much information as the whole Internet. (Harvard University molecular geneticist George Church)

Range of capabilities possible for even small groups of neurons are beyond current understanding. (wikipedia)

River Jordan: There's an enormous difference between "We think developmental changes are more important in evolutionary theory than is currently described" and "We reject 99.999999999% of all the earth, cosmic, and life sciences".

Questioning science is Science.

Childish behavior is childish.

River Jordan:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged ..."

Ah yes, the creationist quote mine of Charles Darwin.

Questioning science is Science.

Childish behavior is childish.


.

 

[River Jordan]

Well ... don't we have to figure out whose interpretation of scientific data should dictate how we interpret scripture?

Or do we just go with the flow..

That's what peer review is for. You publish your interpretation of the data, other scientists read it over and if they see holes, biases, or errors, they correct it. Play that process out over time and as history shows, it works quite well. It's one of the reasons you and I are able to have this conversation using computers and the internet.
IBeMe,

Your post doesn't make much sense. Sorry.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

That's what peer review is for. You publish your interpretation of the data, other scientists read it over and if they see holes, biases, or errors, they correct it. Play that process out over time and as history shows, it works quite well. It's one of the reasons you and I are able to have this conversation using computers and the internet.

That doen't help. Peer review is good when it comes to factual errors, but beyond that it doesn't guarantee that there are no errors. In that respect peer review is just as subject to interpretation as anything else, because those who are involved in peer review are taught beforehand by others what "interpretation" is correct and which is incorrect.

 

[snr5557]

That doen't help. Peer review is good when it comes to factual errors, but beyond that it doesn't guarantee that there are no errors. In that respect peer review is just as subject to interpretation as anything else, because those who are involved in peer review are taught beforehand by others what "interpretation" is correct and which is incorrect.

It's because of this peer review that we have modern medicine, technology, and a better understanding of our world. Unless you're going to say that things such as the polio vaccine is wrong or doesn't help?

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: Your post doesn't make much sense. Sorry.

.
Sorry ... don't know how to dumb it down.

All of the earth, cosmic, and life sciences had to erase the 2'nd epoch and the beginning of the 3'rd epoch of Evolution when they found how stupid all their theories were.

Now; earth, cosmic, and life sciences are on standby while evolutionary scientist are desperately looking for an explanation of how life could exist without God.

So far, they don't even have a clue of where to look, or what they're looking far.

They're also looking for a way to address the disparity of a puny 3.5 billion years; compared to the unfolding complexity of Life.

There's relatively little difference between a few thousand years and 3.5 billion years compared to a 34 trillion cell individual engineered down to the atom level.

A three-year-old child has about 1 quadrillion synapses.

A DNA sample the size of your thumb could store as much information as the whole Internet. (Harvard University molecular geneticist George Church) ( roughly 5 million terabytes of data )

Range of capabilities possible for even small groups of neurons are beyond current understanding. (wikipedia)

.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

It's because of this peer review that we have modern medicine, technology, and a better understanding of our world. Unless you're going to say that things such as the polio vaccine is wrong or doesn't help?

No need to get on your high horse snr, I am just pointing out that in some instances it can be deceptive when people think that it guarantees that something is correct.

Since you brought up medicine, perhaps you would like to read the following article published by the Royal Society of Medicine:

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

 

[snr5557]

No need to get on your high horse snr, I am just pointing out that in some instances it can be deceptive when people think that it guarantees that something is correct.

Since you brought up medicine, perhaps you would like to read the following article published by the Royal Society of Medicine:

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

I was responding to how you said it didn't help, and despite its faults, it does help. As long as scientists go in with a critical eye, but an open mind.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I was responding to how you said it didn't help, and despite its faults, it does help. As long as scientists go in with a critical eye, but an open mind.

I didn't say it didn't help! In fact I said "Peer review is good when it comes to factual errors". And you are actually agreeing with me as to the REASON I brought it up!

BTW, that was quick, did you read the article?