Is science a religion?

Well, you are partly right. We can not test on how life began, that is true. HOwever, we CAN test on how the early biochemistry worked, and come up with likely senerios.For example, did you know that amino acids will assemble into protiens when arrainged on the lattic of a quartz crystal?? Did you know that amino acids will form naturally in the kind of atmosphere that it is believed early earth had?

A misconception that creos love to foster is the idea that if you cannot experiment on something, it's not science. Thus, so the argument goes, since we can't go back in time and experiment on conditions as they existed at that time, science can't ever tell us how life began.The curious thing is that creos then turn around and argue that it's impossibly improbable for the right molecules to come together by themselves, so science proves that goddidit. Of course, this is hardly the only time that creos argue opposite sides of something at the same time, that's kinda one of their specialties.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

She's still kicking - almost 1 1/2 years after they said she'd be dead. What a good dog... edited to change bad math.Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

Such is unsurprising, as rejecting the framework first has a major problem in an unstated assumption.
Watch:You see a white couple with a black child. According to your methodology, the first thing we do is throw out all of genetics. Now we're left with the task of constructing a rule-set that incorporates white people having black children.
The problem is that such assumes that there's only one scenario that can lead to a couple being in possession of a child. As we're assuming it, we have no reason to look into the situation to establish it. This means we're constructing our new framework on some very shaky ground.So, what we're looking at is a ton of work just so we can reach an explanation that has pretty much no chance of correctly describing what's going on. And we have to redo it every time something new pops up -- with the probability of being right decreasing each time.Not a very effective way to go about business.Better:
Assume the framework is fine. Now you have the impetus to look into the situation to see if it's a little more complicated than you first assumed, which resulted in things not adding up on first glance. If you find it, the framework escapes unscathed.Now, such is a bias, but there's nothing that says you have to treat a method that works and one that doesn't equally. I say that being biased towards using the method that works is a good thing.

Either way, the actions of one individual are utterly meaningless to evolution as a whole and only serve to remove destructive traits from the gene pool. It doesn't matter if you care or not. you have the option to remove your genes from the system anyway. How does that show that you have power? Its a bit like refusing to vote and then saying that doing so gave you power to effect the outcome of the election. The universe will just keep on rolling along quite happily no matter what you do. On the contrary, I talk of evolution as an unthinking and completely uncaring mechanism of nature. my entire point is that it doesn't give a crap what you or any individual does. Actions only become significant when they are shared by a significant proportion of the entire population.

I have a fever of 100 today, or else I'd give you all better answers.Dinosaurs:
I'm sure you have answers for all the historical data I might present. You probably have answers for just about everything you believe. I'm just pointing out that your beliefs are faith based, and, therefore, biased. (Yes. I know what bias means.) I'm not at all saying that bias is bad. You can have feelings about all kinds of stuff that turns out to be true most of the time. It can be based in solid evidence. I just want you to see that not everyone feels the same way as you given the same evidence. Feelings are valid.Testable = science:
I listed the steps of the scientific method earlier. If I got them wrong, let me know, but I believe testing is one of the steps. That would make anything that's not testable not science. So, the untestable is untrue.Pastors crossing over into the scientific arena:
The minute you took on the story of Creation, you went into the theological realm.My history:
Yes, I read evolutionary perspective. I said once before that I considered deciding to believe it. I never read a physical book, but I read many scientific papers, books, and debates on the web. I'm guessing that many of you have more of the evidence down than me, as I decided not to memorize it. It doesn't mean I didn't reject much of the evidence you have at one time of another. Reading it all certainly gave me an understanding of how biased you all are. If there is overwhelming evidence (like I saw there is supposed to be on the Simpsons today), I have yet to see it.True believer:
It is insulting to those who have faith to have people that have a different faith demeaning that faith. I'll leave it at that, because I have no proof of that fact, but I know it's true. By this you can know that things that are not filtered through the scientific method can also be true.Scientific method:
You all seem to believe that the scientific method was the greatest breakthrough ever. I agree that it was good. It's really good to have guidelines about how we interpret the world around us. I also think it's good that you are supposed to put away your bias when certain things have been tested and found false. It's good. A Christian created the scientific method. I think the fault lies in the fact that you conclude some things before you have the proper amounts of solid evidence. You have enough for faith, but it's not insurmountable. The method seems to me to be good most of the time, because they give us a working model to test by. The problem comes when we start believing that it is fact when the evidence isn't really in. What's more, common sense gives us quite as many results as the scientific method does. Look at the ancients of all cultures. It's curiosity and the prospect of fame and fortune that give us such great results, not the scientific method.I made it up:
That's not to say that I didn't have evidence. It's my own little theory... and yes, it's better to believe that than what other people tell me, especially when I have reason to believe the evidence is biased. I have no way to verify their data, and I believe my data is quite sound. I’m guessing you all have your own little theories too, so don't fault me for making everything work in my world.Emotional gratification:
It's irrelevant to me that my seed would be weeded out. It's nice that it gives you comfort.Evidence:
Yes, I believe if the evidence is given, the evolutionists always win... because they come up with the theories that suit the evidence. What's more, that evidence is interpreted mostly by those who believe in Evolutionism. I doubt you get many papers that talk about just what they saw without any sort of spin. I've read many papers, and I've never seen one written without some theory worked into it. So, it's not an issue of the evidence, for me. It's an issue of bias. We've talked that one to death.Willful ignorance:
To me, that implies that I have investigated the evidence and rejected it. Thank you for showing others that it's possible to do this. I've been trying to convince people here that that is exactly why I have to reject the evidence given by folks like you... because of willful bias. (I don't think you're ignorant.) I would readily accept evidence that supported my ideas. I suppose that matches the definition of willful ignorance.My ideas - you can tell me how it doesn't work:
Dating methods are circular, and they're not testable by common folk like me (among other reasons). I can't even accept most of them if they support my timeframes. God created man after He created all the other animals. It doesn't have to be done in a literal 6 days. That doesn't matter to me. The flood was local. I don't think the 40 days of rain would be sufficient, so it would have to have been the waters on the ground that are mentioned in the text. Perhaps the rain caused the oceans to rise, causing a massive flood in the valley where the people were living at the time. This story is cross cultural, so I believe all the stories of Noah came directly from the same flood. God made man, plants, and animals with the ability to adapt to their environment. There are no cross species (aside from those that are claimed solely for proof for evolution). We all started with a complete and pure gene pool. Through breeding of all the different cultures from around the world, we could probably get near to the genes that Noah had. All or most of the deficiencies of our genes came from breeding. Those genes from cross cultural marriages end up producing stronger kids.A good many of these things are testable. All I'd have to do is go to all the countries that these theories involve and bring my shovel with me. If *I* found evidence that contradicted my theory (as opposed to those who were trying to promote Darwin's work), I would have to consider that my theory was wrong.Is this a religious perspective? Yes. Does the Evolutionary perspective start with a religious perspective? Oh ya. I don't care if you say it doesn't, I've seen it all over in here. You START with the bias and you run the evidence through that filter. Even if the literal text of Genesis is off, which I don't think it has to be, science shouldn't rule out a Creator. Apples and oranges, ya, I've heard it before. I say that is your perspective. I think they have to meld if we are going to be fulfilled people.Edited by brianforbes, : grammatical mistake

Two different mistakes here.1. Testing is not required for something to be scientific, at least not testing in the sense that I think you mean it. Look at it this way, there's no way to test the stars, planets, galaxies, 'most everything that we see in the sky. Does that make astronomy any less scientific? Think about it.2. "The untestable is untrue." This is a nonsequitor. You are conflating two very different things. Assuming, arguendo, that untestable means unscientific, that does not equate with untestable being untrue. A proposition may be scientifically unsupportable but true nontheless.Take for example the following two statements: "At least one God exists," and "No Gods exist." Neither of these statements are scientifically verifible but, necessarily, one of them is true.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Science is just that, science. If we can sit here and observe something as fact, it can be science.Creation, Evolution, whatever... is belief, faith, religon. No one knows if it happened. It was the past and there is little record. All is speculation and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Creation has the bible to tell exactly how everything happened but since we weren't alive then it is still speculation. Just as Evolution is all just theory thought up in peoples heads with no real scientific proof. I don't look to science for my beliefs. I look towards what I feel is common sense and reasonable. You take everything in, BOTH sides, look at it in an unbiased way, and really think about what is reasonable.Edited by romajc, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. You need to define the type of existence, have a meaninful definition of 'God', and have that definition line up with the type of existence.

Your belief that what your Mommy and Daddy told you is true has no bearing on whether it is actually true.

quote:

---

It was the past and there is little record.

---

Actually, there's quite a bit of record. In several different fields of science. That is confirmed by several independent methodologies. And the record is quite clear what the past was. Some people don't want to acknowldege that, though.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

quote:

---

Science is just that, science. If we can sit here and observe something as fact, it can be science.
Creation, Evolution, whatever... is belief, faith, religon. No one knows if it happened. It was the past and there is little record. All is speculation and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Creation has the bible to tell exactly how everything happened but since we weren't alive then it is still speculation. Just as Evolution is all just theory thought up in peoples heads with no real scientific proof. I don't look to science for my beliefs. I look towards what I feel is common sense and reasonable. You take everything in, BOTH sides, look at it in an unbiased way, and really think about what is reasonable.

---

We are at the point now with the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, and many other points of data, that there is no serious scientific debate about whether or not evolution occured or not. The data is in and it's overwhelming. Your choice is either to accept it or be stubborn and not accept it. That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a fact. BTW the germ theory of disease was a theory that somebody just thought up, it just happens to be backed up by evidence, just like evolution. The germ theory of disease isn't any less true because it's a theory.Edited by CACTUSJACKmankin, : No reason given.

The two statements have opposite truth values, whatever meaning is assigned to the terms, so long as the meanings are the same in both statements. So, yes, actually, necessarily.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Sorry, but no. There are several combinations that leave them meaningless.
As an example, let's use Storm in relation to 'goddess'. To the tribesmen of Kenya, she's a goddess. To the Friends of Humanity, she's merely a 'filthy mutant'. So, pertaining to Storm, does a goddess objectively exist? The question is meaningless, as whether or not something is a goddess is obviously subjective.

Your counter-example relies on the term having different meanings. I stipulated that the terms have the same meanings in both statements. You have not provided a counter-example.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin