Why do the God-haters persist?

[Youwerecreated]

Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News

Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?

Ancestor: : a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?

Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's 458 Spider.

The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News

Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?

Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.

To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.

 

[Hollie]

First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.

Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?

Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?

Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)

Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News

There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.

Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.

You just take up this nonsense as you go along.

The real issue you are unable to resolve is that science has shown there is no requirement for your gods or any gods to account for the diversity of life on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?

Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.

To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.

So you claim. However, your utter lack of a science vocabulary suggests you have invented an online persona.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News

There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.

Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.

You just take up this nonsense as you go along.

The real issue you are unable to resolve is that science has shown there is no requirement for your gods or any gods to account for the diversity of life on the planet.

I just provided some very big hurdles for you to respond to. This is the easy stuff,not having to deal with the origins question yet.

 

[Mephisto]

First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.

Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?

Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?

Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)

Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News

There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.

Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history
Lieberman, B. (2003). "Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation". Integrative and Comparative Biology 43 (1): 229–237. doi:10.1093/icb/43.1.229. PMID 21680426.

The analysis considered the bioprovinciality of trilobite lineages, as well as their evolutionary rate

 

[Youwerecreated]

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?

Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.

To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.

So you claim. However, your utter lack of a science vocabulary suggests you have invented an online persona.

I am nothing like you hollie, if I am wrong with your extensive background, you should be able to respond to questions without having to run off to wiki or talk origins.

 

[Hollie]

There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.

Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.

You just take up this nonsense as you go along.

The real issue you are unable to resolve is that science has shown there is no requirement for your gods or any gods to account for the diversity of life on the planet.

I just provided some very big hurdles for you to respond to. This is the easy stuff,not having to deal with the origins question yet.

What hurdles?

As to the origins question, yes, you do have insurmountable problems with claims to a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[Hollie]

Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.

To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.

So you claim. However, your utter lack of a science vocabulary suggests you have invented an online persona.

I am nothing like you hollie, if I am wrong with your extensive background, you should be able to respond to questions without having to run off to wiki or talk origins.

Oh you poor dear. Your feel an entitlement to cut and paste from Harun Yahya and demand that no countering, peer reviewed science documents are allowed in refutation.

 

[Mephisto]

Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?

Ancestor: : a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?

Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's 458 Spider.

The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (1–2): 37–52. PMID 3333352.

In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior

By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.

The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.

 

[Boss]

They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.

And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.

Thanks.

What's interesting in the history of mankind's creations of gods, not only were the Romans completely tolerant of other nation's gods, they actually assumed that the other gods were also true. Admittedly, they found the Egyptian gods more than a little weird, but they still considered them ancient, powerful and real.

As Rome became a multinational empire and Rome the city became an international city, many foreign gods and goddesses had their own shrines built in the capital city itself. Roman citizens could worship any national gods they chose, but it remained commonly accepted that gods were most powerful in their own countries, or their own small geographies. For example even in Rome itself, Jupiter, Optimus Maximus could not supersede the influence of the local gods (“Lares”) that each governed their own crossroads, or family hearth. While public worship of the borrowed Greek pantheon was a community exercise, each family reserved the inside of their homes for private worship of their own family gods.

And in a spectacular admission of the incompleteness of their knowledge, the Romans also worshiped “the unknown god.” This was essentially praying “to whom it may concern”, or "the gods to be announced at a later date" in the explicit knowledge that nobody had exclusive or complete knowledge of the real nature of the godhead. Admittedly, this idea was borrowed (along with the formal state pantheon) from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: Agnostos Theos.

This is what I call civilized.


The ancient Romans were among the most transcendently superstitious people in human history, ever more so than you. That is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. We are also profoundly superstitious as a people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

Yet, the Romans had no less faith in the auspices found in lighting from a clear sky or the conformation of the entrails of a goat than you have in prayer. Go figure.

Again, another "because I say so" argument.

And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.

The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.

But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.

This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.

My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.

You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.

but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.

And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.

Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... "LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!" Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.

 

[Boss]

Really bossy, I wouldn't define human inventions of bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., as especially demonstrative of "rich human history". You seem to forget that gods of natural disasters have been worshipped along with the gods of the sun, the moon and other "innocuous" gods. So it seems you once again (or as usual), refute your own argument.

I wasn't talking about folklore, that was your straw man. I was referring to the Romans and Greeks recognizing a vast array of human spiritual beliefs. You see, man has always had a problem maintaining civilized society without spirituality. Seems that when we abandon spiritual connection, society breaks down and descends into chaos and anarchy. This is why you have no examples of vibrant Atheist societies, they cannot exist for long. Humans are animals, basically apes. When you remove spirituality, they essentially return to being apes and behaving as such. You are a classic example.

Actually, you were talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition.

No, concepts of God are different. They come from our intrinsic spiritual connection.

It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand.

Again, this argument has been dispelled in my previous posts. If spiritual connection or God were invented to explain the mysterious unknown, the advent of science would have killed it. Or at least diminished it greatly. Fact is, as many people are spiritual now as when science was invented. So that argument is defeated, but you continue to repeat it.

What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it.

Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.

I've never said that you need salvation. There is no evidence of ANY human civilization from the past which existed without spirituality. You cannot show evidence of ANY culture which predates human spirituality, it doesn't exist.

It is through human spirituality we created morality. You can have your opinions, but without human spirituality in any form, humans would last about a couple of generations before moral constructs began to break down and we returned to being instinct-driven animals in the wild. Most people behave morally because society is highly moral due to spiritual connection. Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.

 

[Boss]

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?

Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.

 

[Mephisto]

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?

Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.

yes there is...it's called creationism

 

[Boss]

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?

Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.

yes there is...it's called creationism

Well no, creationism doesn't claim to be science. It's an explanation for origin which, frankly, science is lacking. For any science to work, something had to create the parameters. Such as time, gravity, electromagnetism, physics, etc. So no "special science" just the common sense that things don't create themselves, therefore the physical also didn't create itself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ancestor: : a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?

Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's 458 Spider.

The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (1–2): 37–52. PMID 3333352.

In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior

By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.

The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.

From now on ,please provide your source.

I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.

 

[Hollie]

Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?

Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.

yes there is...it's called creationism

Well no, creationism doesn't claim to be science. It's an explanation for origin which, frankly, science is lacking. For any science to work, something had to create the parameters. Such as time, gravity, electromagnetism, physics, etc. So no "special science" just the common sense that things don't create themselves, therefore the physical also didn't create itself.

Umm, wrong as usual. The more notorious creation ministries actually do claim to be science based.

Fortunately, the courts have repeatedly struck down attempts by creation science phonies to introduce their religious agenda into the public schools. Obviously you missed the many scams perpetrated by creation ministries whereby they attempted to change the label of Christian fundamentalism to "creation science".

Your lack of a science background causes you make mistakes common among Christian fundamentalists. The tools that science uses to discriminate between viable theories and religious claims to supernaturalism are twofold; reason and evidence. A theory that has substantial evidence for its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions is called a “robust” theory. A theory with less evidence or no evidence at all, is at the least “less robust,” and therefore deserves less allegiance than the better supported theory.

And can you guess how it is we (those of us in the rational, natural world), discriminate between competing theories - theories based on reason and rationality vs. contradictory religious claims to supernaturalism? What discriminates are the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to study the data and reach rational conclusions. You preference is based (as you admit here) purely on which religious claim best fits your a priori religious commitment.

 

[GISMYS]

GOD SAYS TEACH YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT HIS WORD! You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up. Deuteronomy 11:19

 

[Hollie]

Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?

Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.

You actually confirmed that you have not had any real exposure to a science curriculum.

If you had, you would have been able to confirm, as I indicated earlier, that evolution is confirmed by various science disciplines. On the contrary, Christian fundies and "spiritual connectors" seem to believe themselves to be in the process of overthrowing modern biology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, and other fields of science. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of Bibles and "spirit realms" is suspect and in need of correction / alignment with their subjective interpretations. Creationists have a siege mentality. Even in the face of evidence long ago refuting their claims to supernaturalism and magic, they will maintain their ignorance because to admit biblical error is to admit that their entire argument rests on false claims. And as we see, with no reliable mechanism for correcting errors in creationist dogma, the errors are passed along from creation ministry to "spirit realm'ists to fundie whack job.

 

[Hollie]

Again, another "because I say so" argument.

And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.

The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.

But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.

This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.

My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.

You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.

but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.

And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.

Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... "LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!" Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.

Your alleged hearing of voices from some "spirit realm" is best described as a pathology.