Science IS religion

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing in vaccines has anything to do with sharing an ancestor with a flatworm.

Really? Prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

? Of course there was adapting and evolving. What are you talking about??

If your God exists either he used evolution or he is a liar. You keep claiming that God is a liar.

 

[dad]

Really? Prove it.

Show us something in vaccines that has to do with you being relatives with a flatworm then. Here is your chance to do more than whinge.

 

[dad]

If your God exists either he used evolution or he is a liar. You keep claiming that God is a liar.

Not only did He use evolving, it is a created trait. So? He did not use evolving in creating life though! Nor does science really know what was created and what may have evolved from original created kinds.

 

[Martin]

If you think science is religion you've been doing it wrong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, of course so called sciences dealing with THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are belief based. Just because we have some evolving happening now, does not mean that all life came about from that!

That doesn't make sense.

Of course it's happening now because it's been happening like that since the beginning of life on this planet.

Is there some magical poofing going on somewhere that we don't know about?

 

[blü 2]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion.

Then money is the universal religion ─ the idea that particular pieces of paper, let alone particular electronic signals, carry actual value is entirely based on faith. (For those who shun such superstitions, there's always barter.)

But in fact the distinguishing feature of a religion is the assertion that the supernatural exists and is populated by magical beings whose deeds are deemed to be achieved by willpower and not by cause+effect.

Hypotheses in science are instead expressed in falsifiable terms, that is, the intention from the start is to test them against reality and to discard them if they don't work there.

Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

So does the study of origins. The Big Bang model is derived by working backwards from observation, devising hypotheses like inflation to account for what's known, and, once again, testing them to see if they fit.

So I respectfully disagree with your ─ ahm ─ hypothesis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not only did He use evolving, it is a created trait. So? He did not use evolving in creating life though! Nor does science really know what was created and what may have evolved from original created kinds.

We know because it's in the genome.

Ever see a dinosaur? It's still in their genes.

Scientists Have Grown 'Dinosaur Legs' on a Chicken For The First Time

Clever girl.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, of course so called sciences dealing with THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are belief based. Just because we have some evolving happening now, does not mean that all life came about from that!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, of course so called sciences dealing with THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are belief based. Just because we have some evolving happening now, does not mean that all life came about from that!

I agree. Especially within certain aspects of evolution, do we see “belief”. Just like the “dinosaur-to-birds” paleontologists. Most apparently ‘believe’ that. Is it accurate? Well, there are some well-known scientists, like Dr. Alan Feduccia, who’ve grouped themselves together, as BAND: Birds Are Not Dinosaurs. They ‘believe’ the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Scientists devoted to materialism may hate the word ‘believe’, but that’s what it is..

There are many fields of evolution where the scientists have no consensus as to the source or extent of change.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Where Christians got themselves in trouble was when they came up with the young Earth delusion, among other things.

 

[siti]

Show us something in vaccines that has to do with you being relatives with a flatworm then.

Triosephosphate isomerase...or more specifically, the evolved genetic differences in the Triosephosphate isomerase gene between free-living and parasitic flatworms that suggest a potential immunogenic target for new vaccines against parasitic flatworms. Triosephosphate isomerase is an enzyme that is common to almost - but not quite - all living things and plays an important role in glycolysis...

Of course the reason new vaccines and drugs are required - for example against schistosomiasis (a disease caused by parasitic flatworms) is precisely because selective pressure pushes these species in the direction of drug resistance as they evolve - the need for the continued search for new and effective vaccines is itslef a result of evolution.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Not even a little bit true. Origin science has **evidence**. No belief is required nor wanted-- indeed, faith can seriously get in the way of good science.

Because faith is a foregone "conclusion" based on "wishes" and can lead to ignoring fact.

As is the case with every creationist, everywhere: Who 100% ignore mountains of fact, in order to preserve faith.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Try to remember there may be more people out there who look at the content of what is said, rather than some personal thing. Your claims should stand on their own two feet.

Irony duly noted for later.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, of course so called sciences dealing with THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are belief based. Just because we have some evolving happening now, does not mean that all life came about from that!

100% false. Sorry.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

THE theory of evolution very much involves 'early' life forms. For example some say the flatworm is the earliest relative of man that shares a common ancestor with us.

That would be a false statement, if anyone other than creationists say that flatworms are "the earliest relative of man".

The correct observation is: distant ancestors of flatworms are also distant ancestors of apes, of which humans are a member.

And since evolution never stops? Modern flatworms may be different in subtle ways than their distant ancestors.

But yes-- all chordate (backbone) life on Earth can trace through flatworms as a group.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Of course if comets or pond sludge or sea vents or....whatever nonsense people feel may be believable that they can dream up is where life started, then evolution deals in origins. Even if you want to ignore the early origin claims about where it started, you are still left with all life evolving from simple lifeforms. That is your religion.

100% false. False at every conceivable level of false-ness. Fractal Wrongness.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Lurkers...look at his shrill little empty posts and tell me what anyone could possibly be running from?

You have yet to post anything resembling an argument... so...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. Especially within certain aspects of evolution, do we see “belief”. Just like the “bird-to-dinosaur” paleontologists. Most apparently ‘believe’ that. Is it accurate? Well, there are some well-known scientists, like Dr. Alan Feduccia, who’ve grouped themselves together, as BAND: Birds Are Not Dinosaurs. They ‘believe’ the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Scientists devoted to materialism may hate the word ‘believe’, but that’s what it is..

There are many fields of evolution where the scientists have no consensus as to the source or extent of change.

You also need to learn the difference between knowledge and belief. Unfortunately you do not have enough knowledge to know so all you can do is believe. Others do not have the same problem. Like dad, you should be trying to learn how scientists know what they know.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Not only did He use evolving, it is a created trait. So? He did not use evolving in creating life though! Nor does science really know what was created and what may have evolved from original created kinds.

Prove it. First? You must prove that gods are even possible.

Next? You have to prove a god exist.

Next? If you can manage either of the above, you have to show the "proven god" is your particular version of 'god'.

Finally? You must prove that this 'god' did not use evolution-- which, if true, makes it a LIAR, for "creating all the fact which supports evolution" -- facts you continue to ignore.