Do you believe that science is a religion?

[snr5557]

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?

I've heard of what you were saying before, I skimmed it and got the gist of it. We have to talk about this sort of thing in school, so we can sift through what are and are not credible sources.

"That doen't help."

I didn't read everything you had written, I'm doing homework and this discussion board at the same time. So that's my bad.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I've heard of what you were saying before, I skimmed it and got the gist of it. We have to talk about this sort of thing in school, so we can sift through what are and are not credible sources.

"That doen't help."

I didn't read everything you had written, I'm doing homework and this discussion board at the same time. So that's my bad.

OK, no problem.

 

[River Jordan]

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.

I never said peer review was perfect. It's specifically crafted to minimize personal bias, and is the best tool we've developed for figuring things out. If you've got a better method, please present it.

And I always have to laugh at the irony and lack of self-awareness whenever a creationist just waves away the findings of science as biased when it doesn't to conform to their fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[KingJ]

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.

So because scripture does not mention everything there is to know, you assume it is false on what it does mention? That is brain dead reasoning. Evolution makes claims that opposes a lot of scripture. Medicine doesn't! Huge difference.

When scripture does mention something that clashes with sceince, we study scripture properly. Giving it a fair trial. Your illustration of earth sitting on pillars (Rev 7:1, Revelations always requires some extra effort in understanding it) is not a fair trial when there is scripture like Isaiah 40:22 and more http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html.

So what are you going to do? laugh at scripture...like all the ungodly athiests want to, or try defend it...like all those who love Jesus do?

 

[snr5557]

So because scripture does not mention everything there is to know, you assume it is false on what it does mention? That is brain dead reasoning. Evolution makes claims that opposes a lot of scripture. Medicine doesn't! Huge difference.

Scientists use their understanding of evolution to help cure and treat diseases. That's kind of like saying you approve of spreading the Gospel, but refuse to even read the Bible. The Bible is needed to understand the Gospel, because without the Bible we would not know what those from Biblical times wanted to say. Without evolution, we will not understand how diseases change, so we will not be able to solve new problems.



When scripture does mention something that clashes with sceince, we study scripture properly. Giving it a fair trial. Your illustration of earth sitting on pillars (Rev 7:1, Revelations always requires some extra effort in understanding it) is not a fair trial when there is scripture like Isaiah 40:22 and more http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html.

I think we should do both, study both science and the Bible properly.

 

[KingJ]

Scientists use their understanding of evolution to help cure and treat diseases.Without evolution, we will not understand how diseases change, so we will not be able to solve new problems.

That is simply brain dead reosoning. We don't need to believe in evolution to study dna and find cures to diseases...really??? Sorry my IQ is way beyond 10.

I think we should do both, study both science and the Bible properly.

Clearly you are not doing the latter! or believe the latter to be the truth by the spirit (ie not a Christian). Perhaps just own a t-shirt or crucifix.

 

[snr5557]

That is simply brain dead reosoning. We don't need to believe in evolution to study dna and find cures to diseases...really??? Sorry my IQ is way beyond 10.


We need evolution to study how diseases change. That is why a person is advised to get a flu shot every year, because the strain of the flu changes. Well I would assume your IQ is beyond 10, in fact I don't a person could even hold a conversation if their IQ was only at 10.

Clearly you are not doing the latter! or believe the latter to be the truth by the spirit (ie not a Christian). Perhaps just own a t-shirt or crucifix.

Clearly you never listen to what I say, perhaps you can't put your faith to the test and pass. You can't look at facts, because that strangely would crush your faith. I see what God has given us, and embrace it. I can't help that you do not want what God has given us, but do not accuse me of having less faith than you, when you tremble at shadows. You cannot even face that glory that He has given, I try to see what He has done for us, because I believe He would want us to. I know that I will never understand the entire universe, but if I try hard enough I believe I will be able to scratch the surface of what is out there. I try to see what He wants us to see, so that we can move forward in this world to improve it for the next generation, and if we're lucky, this generation.

 

[KingJ]

That is simply brain dead reosoning. We don't need to believe in evolution to study dna and find cures to diseases...really??? Sorry my IQ is way beyond 10.


We need evolution to study how diseases change. That is why a person is advised to get a flu shot every year, because the strain of the flu changes. Well I would assume your IQ is beyond 10, in fact I don't a person could even hold a conversation if their IQ was only at 10.

Mutation is not evolution! http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

This is what gets to me. You call yourself a Christian, yet grab at straws to support the theory of evolution as adamantly / naively / un-objectively as atheists would ?><? What the hell man? You and River are simply dishonest Christians. You have never read a conflicting / objective creationist article on viruses? http://creation.com/swine-flu-is-it-evidence-of-evolution

 

[snr5557]

Mutation is not evolution! http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

This is what gets to me. You call yourself a Christian, yet grab at straws to support the theory of evolution as adamantly / naively / un-objectively as atheists would ?><? What the hell man? You and River are simply dishonest Christians. You have never read a conflicting / objective creationist article on viruses? http://creation.com/swine-flu-is-it-evidence-of-evolution

Mutation by itself is not evolution, but it does play its part.

I haven't been grabbing at straws, this has actually been really enjoyable for me. Although I have had the basic understanding of what evolution is, though this site I have been exposed to how fast bacteria evolves, why animals change color, and how massive the flood (the story of Noah) would have to be and how that wouldn't work. Actually, we have been completely honest.

I have read Creationist articles, and then when I went to find if there are any scientific articles I always find them, and they use real science. Here is one from a credible source, the CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm

Here is another article from the magazine Nature, another credible source, although you will probably have to sign up to read Nature in order to read the full article.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n4/execsumm/nrg2323.html

 

[KingJ]

Mutation by itself is not evolution,


http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n4/execsumm/nrg2323.html

Then why do you say ''We need evolution to study how diseases change'' instead of ''We need to study mutation to see how diseases change''? Leave evolution in the dictionary. You will only miss it if you are an atheist.

 

[snr5557]

Then why do you say ''We need evolution to study how diseases change'' instead of ''We need to study mutation to see how diseases change''? Leave evolution in the dictionary. You will only miss it if you are an atheist.

Because diseases do mutate, which is part of evolution. If we leave evolution only in the dictionary then we won't be able to help people with diseases. Unless, you are going to say the Christian thing to do is to purposefully not create cures or treatments for diseases so that people will suffer and possibly die. And in that case you area actually right, the God I know wants us to help our fellow man. Here is an example of how evolution, mutations, and disease are connected:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0042336

 

[KingJ]

Because diseases do mutate, which is part of evolution.

No, you make it a part. Diseases mutation = observeable consequence. Evolution = ....???....??? no observable consequence other then in a dictionary ;).

If we leave evolution only in the dictionary then we won't be able to help people with diseases.

How do you figure? God gave us brains to be used. Can we only use them if we believe in evolution?

Unless, you are going to say the Christian thing to do is to purposefully not create cures or treatments for diseases so that people will suffer and possibly die. And in that case you area actually right, the God I know wants us to help our fellow man.

No, the Christian thing to do is use our brains to the maximum!! God is for medicine!!

Here is an example of how evolution, mutations, and disease are connected:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0042336

The algorithm that evolution claims to work by, is flawed because the only source of information for it is the environment. Random mutations come from the environment. So does natural selection. In the end the only input to the proposed evolution function is random. Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible. http://creation.com/genetic-algorithms-do-they-show-that-evolution-works

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/examined.htm Scroll to chapter 2 about halfway down for an interesting read.

 

[snr5557]

No, you make it a part. Diseases mutatation = observeable consequence. Evolution = ....???....??? no observable consequence other then in a dictionary ;).

The observable consequence of evolution is how we have all of these different species. Mutations play a part in evolution, but it is not the whole.


How do you figure? God gaves us brains to be used. Can we only use them if we believe in evolution?

We need evolution to make medicine. This is like you saying, why do we need to understand gravity when building a skyscraper? God gave us brains to be used. Can we only believe them if we believe in gravity? You see how that doesn't make sense.


No, the Christian thing to do is use our brains to the maximum!! God is for medicine!!

That is why I am so suprised that you are against medicine.


The algorithm that evolution claims to work by, is flawed because the only source of information for it is the environment. Random mutations come from the environment. So does natural selection. The only input to the proposed evolution function is random. Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible.

Random mutations come from when the DNA copy is not made correctly, not because of where the organism is at. Natural selection does rely on the environment. So you got half of it right.

 

[KingJ]

How do you figure? God gaves us brains to be used. Can we only use them if we believe in evolution?

We need evolution to make medicine. This is like you saying, why do we need to understand gravity when building a skyscraper? God gave us brains to be used. Can we only believe them if we believe in gravity? You see how that doesn't make sense.

No we don't. Gravity is observable, evolution is not. It has no observational consequence. It is not a ''theory'' like gravity. Not by a longshot. Googling the definitions of scientific theories and reason for changing that of gravity makes for an interesting read! :).

Random mutations come from when the DNA copy is not made correctly, not because of where the organism is at. Natural selection does rely on the environment. So you got half of it right..

You must read and give your thoughts on the links I provided.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I never said peer review was perfect. It's specifically crafted to minimize personal bias, and is the best tool we've developed for figuring things out. If you've got a better method, please present it.

And I always have to laugh at the irony and lack of self-awareness whenever a creationist just waves away the findings of science as biased when it doesn't to conform to their fundamentalist beliefs.

Being "designed to minimize personal bias" is just another way of saying "enforcing the bias of the community".

I never said I had a better method, or that it wasn't the best tool we have as far as real science is concerned.

So please keep your "biased" strawmen to yourself..

 

[River Jordan]

We don't need to believe in evolution to study dna and find cures to diseases...really???

Yes we do. CLICK HERE to read Carl Zimmer's description of how evolutionary relationships between diverse taxa are used to discern genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

Mutation is not evolution!

Mutation is one of the mechanisms behind evolution. You and I each have over 100 new mutations. Even AIG says that creationists shouldn't argue that there are no beneficial mutations.

You and River are simply dishonest Christians. You have never read a conflicting / objective creationist article on viruses?

I've read lots and lots of creationist material. That's why I'm so familiar with their arguments.

And let's be clear here....there's one side of this issue who consistently misrepresents science, asks questions in bad faith, denies observed reality, and generally behaves in extremely dishonest ways...the creationists.

For example, you posted, "Gravity is observable, evolution is not. It has no observational consequence."

From our previous discussions, you know that's not true. I've posted to you not only examples of the observed evolution of new species, but observational consequences as well. Yet despite the fact that your talking point is demonstrably false, you continue to repeat it.

And then you have to audacity to call me dishonest? Wow.

Being "designed to minimize personal bias" is just another way of saying "enforcing the bias of the community".

I never said I had a better method, or that it wasn't the best tool we have as far as real science is concerned.

So please keep your "biased" strawmen to yourself..

Yes, I realize that's what you have to believe...that since the scientific community has consistently rejected young-earth creationism for the last 200 years, they must therefore just be "biased". It never occurs to you that it might be simply because YEC is scientifically wrong.

Of course I guess that in one way, the scientific community is biased against YEC....in the same way they're "biased" against flat-earth geocentrism.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Yes, I realize that's what you have to believe...that since the scientific community has consistently rejected young-earth creationism for the last 200 years, they must therefore just be "biased". It never occurs to you that it might be simply because YEC is scientifically wrong.

Of course I guess that in one way, the scientific community is biased against YEC....in the same way they're "biased" against flat-earth geocentrism.

I don't have to believe anything. I'm just pointing out the facts... you know, the one's you don't want to admit. The link I posted earlier on points out that there are problems with peer review. Am I suddenly a flat-earther for doing so? Keep your insults to yourself.

 

[IBeMe]

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

Only if we were analphabet.

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth ...

]As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.

"pillars" used in some places is "stand, platform" (Strongs)

In other words, foundation; that which holds the Earth in place.

Before we mock the Word of God, we should realize that we don't really know what holds the Earth in place.

"It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by ..." (wikipedia)

We do have a comfortable relationship with gravity, understanding a lot of its properties.

"... the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy." (wikipedia)

We don't know what 95% of the Universe is.

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

The Bible doesn't reveal all things and says some things will be deceptively confounding.

Let's remember that scientist used to have a ton of theories on how Life began ... then ... turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish.

River Jordan: ... is orbited by the sun....

Really silly!

Some scriptures use the same perspective we use.

Ever hear of "sunrise" or "subset"?

The Earth is portrayed as a planetary body that can rock to and fro and be moved out of place.

... hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, ...

The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage ...


.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't have to believe anything. I'm just pointing out the facts... you know, the one's you don't want to admit. The link I posted earlier on points out that there are problems with peer review. Am I suddenly a flat-earther for doing so? Keep your insults to yourself.

Your adherence to young-earth creationism mandates specific beliefs. You have to believe that the scientific community is inherently biased and has an agenda, is extremely bad at their jobs, is under some sort of satanic delusion, or a combination of all three. What other explanation do you have for the fact that the world's scientific community has rejected YEC for the last two centuries?

And again, no one said peer review was perfect. But it's obviously the best method we have for reducing bias and spotting errors in scientific work....because it works. I mean, just about everything around us today is a product of peer-reviewed science.

I wonder just how you think it should be changed though. How do you envision the peer-review process going under your preferred scenario? Should scientists check all their results against the Bible? If so, whose interpretation of the Bible? Yours? Mine? Ken Ham's? Francis Collins'? The Pope's?
IBeMe,

Scripture also says the earth sits on pillars, that there was a mountain from which all of the earth could be seen, that the earth is a circle (not a ball, which the Hebrews had a word for), and that the earth has four corners.

Obviously a literal reading of those scriptures results in a flat earth. That's why Martin Luther and other prominent religious leaders were flat earth believers.

But as you note, we don't read those scriptures literally, do we?

 

[IBeMe]

River Jordan: Scripture also says the earth sits on pillars

As I said, the analphabetic may have problems.

I guess you think that James, Cephas, and John looked like post?

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, ...

River Jordan: that the earth is a circle

The scripture describes looking down on the Earth, as a circle.

What do you see in a photo of the Earth?

River Jordan: Obviously a literal reading of those scriptures results in a flat earth.

For the analphabetic.

Others realize that God said He didn't reveal all things.

The Bible talks about gravity in many places, but doesn't go into the detail of how it works.

BTW, scientist still don't know what gravity is.

River Jordan: That's why Martin Luther and other prominent religious leaders were flat earth believers.

Lot of folks back then thought the Earth was flat, so?

That was a long time ago.

But, check this out, you'll get a big laugh out of this!

Up until real recent; evolutionary scientists, and their devout followers, thought they had the origin of life all figured out; wrote all kinds of books for the devoted followers to read and chant.

Then some real Science happened, and it all turned out to be a bunch of real stupid stuff.

Now, the devout evolutionaries don't have anything to chant if someone asks them how life could exist without God.

River Jordan: But as you note, we don't read those scriptures literally, do we?

I note you trying to put words in my mouth and having a truth challenged moment.


.