Science Is/As A Religion

[Intense]

So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.…humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

religion is 100% faith based.

science is MOSTLY based on studies, investigations, research, analysis.

There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences. What Study is not effected in some way by our very presence?

 

[rdean]

Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics. That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.



I do. As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites. I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.

Oh no. Now you went and did it. Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a circumcisionbanned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sorry I was a skeptic. Thanks for the link. These are truly hilarious. I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?

 

[HUGGY]

We all have our pet biases, I suppose. Me, for instance, I always imagine the men of USMB writing in their underwear -- and all of them are cute.

Who wears underwear? I haven't worn any since I was 14.

 

[Intense]

I find it funny that, in failing in it's original intent to try and cast science as a "religion" this thread has basically digressed to a theological debate over actual religion.

We can each speak for ourselves. It is an individual choice, what one makes a Religion out of. To think Scientifically, one would seek to refrain from projecting, generalizing, without qualification. Correct?

 

[daveman]

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.

Oh no. Now you went and did it. Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a circumcisionbanned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sorry I was a skeptic. Thanks for the link. These are truly hilarious. I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?

An AGW cultist has no business mocking anyone else's faith.

You asked for flood stories. You got them. You didn't specify they had to mirror the Noah's Ark story, so don't move the goalposts now, Skippy.

 

[HUGGY]

I disagree. While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are. Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables. It is a distinct appetite from science.

It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.

I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such. I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE! He "sounds" like a real scientist. Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!! Yet he still stands there with the funny collar. If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.

The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy. Better catch up!

"Catch up with the Catholic Church?" That's pretty funny. I don't follow any organized religion closely. I was just amused they have an observatory and actual astronomers in the Vatican. I bet it's a hoot when that guy has to explain his observations to the Pope. If they have had astronomers for 100 years why did it take em this long to apologize about Galilio? I think maybe it's them that needs "catching up".

 

[Marc39]

It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.

I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such. I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE! He "sounds" like a real scientist. Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!! Yet he still stands there with the funny collar. If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.

The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy. Better catch up!

"Catch up with the Catholic Church?" That's pretty funny. I don't follow any organized religion closely. I was just amused they have an observatory and actual astronomers in the Vatican. I bet it's a hoot when that guy has to explain his observations to the Pope. If they have had astronomers for 100 years why did it take em this long to apologize about Galilio? I think maybe it's them that needs "catching up".

The Catholic Church has caught up. For example, you don't see Catholics beheading their wives because allah says it's ok to do so and flying airplanes into buildings to get laid by 72 virgins in paradise like the religion of peace'ers

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

At least they have a "methodology". With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.

Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics. That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.

Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?

I do. As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites. I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Are you serious?

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't really addressing you, asterism. I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.

I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith. Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?

Actually most atheists can't seperate it out. In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the ability to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion. This will extend accross many lines of thought as well. rdean, for instance will assume that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you must be a religious fanatic.

That's the problem with those such as yourself. For some reason, your kind thinks the world revolves around your mystical beliefs. Until someone throws mysticism in my face, I don't even think about it. I write here to defend rational thought. Mysticism and the supernatural are "rational"? Belief in, in, "what"? Bogeymen? I don't get it at all.

How can you defend rational thought unless you can think rationally?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.…humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

religion is 100% faith based.

science is MOSTLY based on studies, investigations, research, analysis.

How is religion based 100% on faith?

 

[HUGGY]

The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy. Better catch up!

"Catch up with the Catholic Church?" That's pretty funny. I don't follow any organized religion closely. I was just amused they have an observatory and actual astronomers in the Vatican. I bet it's a hoot when that guy has to explain his observations to the Pope. If they have had astronomers for 100 years why did it take em this long to apologize about Galilio? I think maybe it's them that needs "catching up".

The Catholic Church has caught up. For example, you don't see Catholics beheading their wives and flying airplanes into buildings to get laid by 72 virgins in paradise like our Muzzie friends.

This response is off topic. I apologize to the thread for reacting to a stupid Christian.

Suicide in the name of religion is unscientific as there is no proof of an afterlife. Even living your life assuming you you will get "some reward " later is foolish and not scientific. Just being able to focus a telescope does not a scientist make. I suggest you morons stop wasting valuable telescope time and keep looking in your bibles for miracles and leave the science to those with open minds and the intelligence to understand what they are looking at.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.

Oh no. Now you went and did it. Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a circumcisionbanned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sorry I was a skeptic. Thanks for the link. These are truly hilarious. I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?

First you demand that we show proof that the flood legend is actually a world wide phenomenon, then you choose to mock the bleifs of indigenous peoples. The best part of this is you do not have to wait centureis for a more enlightened individual to come along to mock your ridiculous beliefs, there are billions of people who are more enlightened than you already walking the planet.

 

[Intense]

How about We Try Keeping The Thread on Topic. Huggy Feel Free to Start Your own Catholic Bashing Thread in The Religion Forum or The Romper Room. Let's not derail the Thread again so soon.

 

[westwall]

Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

At least they have a "methodology". With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.

Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics. That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.

Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?

I do. As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites. I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

The Epic of Gilgamesh for one that springs immediately to mind. There are a couple of oher traditions fom the Far East as well that mention a great flood.

 

[westwall]

I wasn't really addressing you, asterism. I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.

I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith. Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?

Actually most atheists can't seperate it out. In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the ability to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion. This will extend accross many lines of thought as well. rdean, for instance will assume that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you must be a religious fanatic.

That's the problem with those such as yourself. For some reason, your kind thinks the world revolves around your mystical beliefs. Until someone throws mysticism in my face, I don't even think about it. I write here to defend rational thought. Mysticism and the supernatural are "rational"? Belief in, in, "what"? Bogeymen? I don't get it at all.

You "believe" in anthropogenic global warming. There is just as much empirical data for that theory as there is for the existence of God. And you defend rational thought?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Why do people have the need to restrict the opposition to narrow definitions that make it impossible to argue a position rationally? Even Wikipedia doesna't agree with your definition, even if it acknowledges it.

Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes,

That seems rather close to my definition, the point being that creationism states all things were made as they currently are, which is in direct opposition to evolution. What part do you feel overlaps there?

How ironic that you counsel against using generalizations when you insist on doing so yourself.

What do you feel I generalized?

I suppose Christians would resist because the Bible describes the uniqueness of it and the second coming of Christ. However, the Roman Catholic Church investigates miracles all the time. Your assumption is wrong and cannot be applied to me.

Oh? Where does the bible say a virgin birth can never happen again?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences.

No, not really. Scientific research is drastically different and held to much higher standards than religious "research," which itself is usually code-word for "studying." Scientific research uses the scientific method to produce an experiment that analyzes the world, and collects data from that experiment to draw logical conclusions. Religious "research" involves reading other people's "research," which itself is circular reasoning, to support previously conceived notions. It's essentially a book report under the name of "analysis."

 

[Madeline]

There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences.

No, not really. Scientific research is drastically different and held to much higher standards than religious "research," which itself is usually code-word for "studying." Scientific research uses the scientific method to produce an experiment that analyzes the world, and collects data from that experiment to draw logical conclusions. Religious "research" involves reading other people's "research," which itself is circular reasoning, to support previously conceived notions. It's essentially a book report under the name of "analysis."

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

 

[Madeline]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

Well, I can agree that studying is not "research". I'm not too sure how anyone would go about "researching" religion, apart from using an anthropologic approach.