Science Disproves Evolution

[joobz]

The truth in religion and the truth in science will point to The Truth.
True science and true religion look at the same object from different directions.
To the extent that they differ, that is the level of some deviation from a strict pursuit of Truth, or lack of yet sufficient level of discovery to permit any certainty.

To get all philosophical here in "science class"...

So why bother calling a science a religion?
If the goals of both are to achieve "the truth", then what would it matter if it is labeled science or religion. Bad science or bad religion will get culled out on the path to truth....
right?

 

[154]

Because it is you guys that condemn religion a priori while exempting your own "system of belief" as some stipulated self-evident science as The Arbiter of Truth, as if the mere saints and dirtbags called scientists were somehow scientifically immunized from bias and prejudice into Science.

The Pope is not Gospel

and Richard Dawkins most certainly isn't either.

I question authority. All authority. Some of you

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content

just traded authorities to not question.

 

[joobz]

Because it is you guys that condemn religion a priori while exempting your own "system of belief" as some stipulated self-evident science as The Arbiter of Truth,

Nothing in science is self-evident. That is why it is built upon a pains taking process of hypothesis testing and experimental validation. Self-evidence it is most certainly not.
And yes, I do believe this is superior to what religion provides. It is the reason why I go to the doctor when I am sick and not a medicine man.
It is why I'll ask a mechanic to fix my engine and not an astrologer.
It is why I'll have an emt sew up a lacerated vein and not ask a priest to pray it better.

Science has resulted in verifiable, usable facts. I do believe science to be more useful than belief/religion.
If you don't agree with that, why would you attempt to debase religion by equating science with it? You are proverbially cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Do you?

The Pope is not Gospel

Ok.

and Richard Dawkins most certainly isn't either.

I agree.

I question authority. All authority. Some of you

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of inappropriate remark

just traded authorities to not question.

Please provide some examples of this. So far, I've only relied on evidence and reason.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some of you

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of inappropriate remark

just traded authorities to not question.

How do you think Jesus feels about the above insult?

 

[John Jones]

Science is not a religion, 154.

 

[154]

It is the reason why I go to the doctor when I am sick and not a medicine man.

Do you think Jesus Christ instructs someone not to go to a doctor?

It is why I'll ask a mechanic to fix my engine and not an astrologer.

Do you think Jesus Christ or the astrologer would instruct either you or I to to take your engine-that-needs-to-be-fixed to anyone other than a mechanic?

It is why I'll have an emt sew up a lacerated vein and not ask a priest to pray it better.

Would it be ok with you if that priest was the one that called 911?

Science has resulted in verifiable, usable facts. I do believe science to be more useful than belief/religion.
If you don't agree with that, why would you attempt to debase religion by equating science with it? You are proverbially cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Nonsense. You can't separate and distinguish between today's philosophy of science from "scientists" and Science itself. In the name of science, and against great currents, some credentialed examiners challenge some current precepts of science. They are not "anti-science."

If "Science" is wrong today, and I disagree with it and say so, and am called "anti-science" for it, and then next year it is found that the "Science Experts" were wrong, for whatever reason, and the counterpoint opinion was indeed correct and scientifically accurate according to a newer understanding, then it wasn't "anti-science," but simply anti- the commonly-held scientific majority or orthodoxy of the time.

This is more Orwellian wordsmith semantical games from Leftists. Disagreement, objection and challenging is not a pursuit of science in itself, no, but rather it is antithetical to science, it is anti-science and to be only derided and dismissed. Why do I say "Leftists" you say? Who do you say are the "anti-science" "anti-education" "anti-intellectuals"?

 

[I Am The Scum]

If "Science" is wrong today, and I disagree with it and say so, and am called "anti-science" for it, and then next year it is found that the "Science Experts" were wrong, for whatever reason, and the counterpoint opinion was indeed correct and scientifically accurate according to a newer understanding, then it wasn't "anti-science," but simply anti- the commonly-held scientific majority or orthodoxy of the time.

Let's take this a step back. It's not so much a matter of the conclusions you draw, but the manner by which you draw those conclusions. If you think the presupposition of Biblical in-errancy is any valid form of epistemology, then very few will be sold by your arguments. When scientific data is overturned and replaced with new information, it is done through the process of science. It has never been, "Well my holy book says..."

Even if the things you say are true, if you cannot provide a rational basis for your beliefs, then it is rational to reject them. Suppose I were to say to you, "The stock market will crash tomorrow, and I know this because the Bible states that Jesus wore high-heels," then you'd be right to point out that my claim is being supported for really bad reasons, and thus you do not believe me. Even if the stock market did crash, would that show that I'm rational and you're not? Of course not. We judge truth through logic and reason. Please provide some.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why do I say "Leftists" you say?

You were inspired by Jonathan Quick to make overly simplistic assumptions?

 

[Simon39759]

I assume that what you're referring to here is the Cambrian Explosion. It's only an explosion in geological terms--it happened over what, five million years?

More like 70 to 80 millions, estimate varies quite a bit, partly because the discovery of new older fossils extended its duration and made its limits fuzzier...

If "Science" is wrong today, and I disagree with it and say so, and am called "anti-science" for it, and then next year it is found that the "Science Experts" were wrong, for whatever reason, and the counterpoint opinion was indeed correct and scientifically accurate according to a newer understanding, then it wasn't "anti-science," but simply anti- the commonly-held scientific majority or orthodoxy of the time.

Nope. And this misunderstanding of yours is quite illustrative of your lack of comprehension of science...
Because, you see, science is not a set of knowledge, science is a method.
You are not anti-science for rejecting the current level of knowledge, you are anti-science for rejecting the very method: facts -> hypothesis -> Test of the hypothesis -> Falsification (or not) of the theory.

Now, I'm sure you will pretend to disagree. That you are all sciency... But, at the end of the day, whatever excuse you hide behind, you reject the conclusion of science because it disagrees with an immutable, revealed truth...
You already have your truth and you will not put it into question and, anything that might contradict it, is dismissed... Good for you, I guess, but that is, pretty much, the opposite of the scientific method. And, as such, justly earn you the descriptor of anti-scientific...

 

[154]

Nope. And this misunderstanding of yours is quite illustrative of your lack of comprehension of science...
Because, you see, science is not a set of knowledge, science is a method.

Of course it is. In common understanding, it is both. Absolutely no need here for more semantical jousting. Of course science is a method, ideally. Scientists, however, just like you and just like me, are often less than ideal or pure in their practice. Nobody's perfect, not even the science priests.

 

[Ladewig]

It is a religion in that it is a competing belief system,

and Darwinists/evolutionists/atheists

Do you realize that on a world-wide basis, more Christians believe in evolution than don't believe in evolution?

 

[154]

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 11 content removed.

Do you realize that on a world-wide basis, more Christians believe in evolution than don't believe in evolution?

No, actually I didn't, but I will take your word for it. I don't really doubt it. It's probably safe to say that many or most "Christians" are really just more of a "cultural Christian" rather than any sincere and serious believer in Jesus Christ. These evolution-believing Christians probably aren't very serious about and don't talk much about Jesus either, is my guess.

 

[DallasDad]

Hey, 154, we're talking about Christians, not Scotsmen.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I would like to see evolution replaced with the truth. When the two models of origins--evolution and creation--are examined by the known laws of physics, the evidence supports creation rather than evolution. One example is the fossil record. Evolution predicts evidence of gradual change from simple to more complex life forms over millions of years. Creation predicts the sudden appearance of life forms. The fossil record supports the creation rather than the evolution prediction.

Yes I know you claim this.
But that is not what I asked.
How can creationism be applied to biology, medicine, microbiology, genetics and similar fields to improve on them yielding similar or better results than the theory of evolution has?
Say a gene of unknown function in a human is causing cancer, what would the creationist solution be to discover its function?
The way to do this using evolutionary theory is to study a homolog of the gene in genetically related organisms like mice or yeast to determine its function there and then theorize onwards to determine what it might do in human cells. But since creationism rejects common ancestry this avenue of study is closed.
The bible does not contain a list of genes and what they do or at least their correct sequence.
So again, how would a creationist scientist solve this problem? What tools does creationism give that would help?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Do you think Jesus Christ instructs someone not to go to a doctor?

I don't know, medicine as we know it did not exist in biblical times and most of current day medication is designed using the theory of evolution in one way or the other.

Do you think Jesus Christ or the astrologer would instruct either you or I to to take your engine-that-needs-to-be-fixed to anyone other than a mechanic?

The bible does not mention any technology past early iron age and taking the evolution standpoint, if its not in the bible, its either evil or wrong. If god had wanted us to have this technology it would be in the bible. There are one or two reasonably large groups of christians in the US at least that follow this interpretation.

Would it be ok with you if that priest was the one that called 911?

Of course, anyone can use telephones. After all, science designed them and they work regardless of who you are or what you believe, even though the concepts of electromagnetics and quantum mechanics used in them are only theories.

Nonsense. You can't separate and distinguish between today's philosophy of science from "scientists" and Science itself. In the name of science, and against great currents, some credentialed examiners challenge some current precepts of science. They are not "anti-science."

But none of them have given any proof that stands up to scrutiny of the scientific community. Claiming something is wrong requires such proof

If "Science" is wrong today, and I disagree with it and say so, and am called "anti-science" for it, and then next year it is found that the "Science Experts" were wrong, for whatever reason, and the counterpoint opinion was indeed correct and scientifically accurate according to a newer understanding, then it wasn't "anti-science," but simply anti- the commonly-held scientific majority or orthodoxy of the time.

No, claiming something is wrong without proof and based upon religious belief is 'anti-science'. Replacing a theory with a different one based upon new evidence that stands up to extensive scruteny is science

This is more Orwellian wordsmith semantical games from Leftists. Disagreement, objection and challenging is not a pursuit of science in itself, no, but rather it is antithetical to science, it is anti-science and to be only derided and dismissed. Why do I say "Leftists" you say? Who do you say are the "anti-science" "anti-education" "anti-intellectuals"?

Why assume all scientists are leftists? I've worked with a large number of people in genetics and a significant amount of them would be considered either right wing, religious or both.

 

[Rincewind]

Do you think Jesus Christ instructs someone not to go to a doctor?

Apparently - yes he does:

From James:
5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

 

[Tubbythin]

Nonsense. You can't separate and distinguish between today's philosophy of science from "scientists" and Science itself. In the name of science, and against great currents, some credentialed examiners challenge some current precepts of science. They are not "anti-science."

That is true of some credentialed scientists. But it is unequivocally not true of "creation scientists" who seek to find evidence of the conclusion they want to draw and deny anything that disagrees with there predetermined beliefs. These people are immaculate examples of anti-science.

 

[Belz...]

No, actually I didn't, but I will take your word for it. I don't really doubt it. It's probably safe to say that many or most "Christians" are really just more of a "cultural Christian" rather than any sincere and serious believer in Jesus Christ. These evolution-believing Christians probably aren't very serious about and don't talk much about Jesus either, is my guess.

Ah, so they don't agree with you so they're not true scottsmen, right ?

 

[joobz]

Do you think Jesus Christ instructs someone not to go to a doctor?
Do you think Jesus Christ or the astrologer would instruct either you or I to to take your engine-that-needs-to-be-fixed to anyone other than a mechanic?
Would it be ok with you if that priest was the one that called 911?

And yet, those advances were made through science, not religion. The bible never once mentions Germ theory. That alone would have prevented countless deaths.

Nonsense. You can't separate and distinguish between today's philosophy of science from "scientists" and Science itself. In the name of science, and against great currents, some credentialed examiners challenge some current precepts of science. They are not "anti-science."

If "Science" is wrong today, and I disagree with it and say so, and am called "anti-science" for it, and then next year it is found that the "Science Experts" were wrong, for whatever reason, and the counterpoint opinion was indeed correct and scientifically accurate according to a newer understanding, then it wasn't "anti-science," but simply anti- the commonly-held scientific majority or orthodoxy of the time.

I never said you were anti-science.

What I was trying to figure out is if you are anti-religion. Afterall, Why would you try to debase evolution by calling it a religion if you didn't believe that science was superior to religion?

This is more Orwellian wordsmith semantical games from Leftists. Disagreement, objection and challenging is not a pursuit of science in itself, no, but rather it is antithetical to science, it is anti-science and to be only derided and dismissed. Why do I say "Leftists" you say? Who do you say are the "anti-science" "anti-education" "anti-intellectuals"?

I'm not sure where any of this comes from.

All I am interested in is trying to determine why you called evolution a religion.
That is clearly meant to be an insult against evolution, which would suggest you have a negative view of religions.
It's an interesting observation and exposes your real opinions more than you wish.

 

[Simon39759]

Of course it is. In common understanding, it is both. Absolutely no need here for more semantical jousting. Of course science is a method, ideally. Scientists, however, just like you and just like me, are often less than ideal or pure in their practice. Nobody's perfect, not even the science priests.

It's not a 'method, ideally'. It's a method, period. The biases of its member will not change the nature of its process...

But, this bias is the reason why science is designed to be self-correcting and objective.
No matter how much a particular scientist is biased toward a particular outcome, his experimental design, double-blinding, randomization... is constructed to get rid of this bias. And the peer review process is there to confirm the quality of the design. Sure, the process is not perfect, but still work in the vast majorities of case...
And sure, they are, like in every domain, a few corrupt or insanely stubborn individuals, but their results, if they conflict with the facts as identified by their more competent colleague, will be quickly identified as such and ignored... As were that of Andrew Wakefield or of the few scientific frauds through the ages...

No, actually I didn't, but I will take your word for it. I don't really doubt it. It's probably safe to say that many or most "Christians" are really just more of a "cultural Christian" rather than any sincere and serious believer in Jesus Christ. These evolution-believing Christians probably aren't very serious about and don't talk much about Jesus either, is my guess.

Nicely condescending here... I'll keep that in mind for the next time you rage against the arrogance of atheists...