Summations Only

I was going to say that your ignorance of science is astounding, but the fact of the matter is that it's all too common. You really should try to learn at least the basics of a subject before commenting on it. Well, it is preposterous to say that since we came into existence through a natural process life means nothing. But it's only the creos who believe this. Never would have guessed.You have a lot to learn. If you are truly interested in learning, you came to the right place. There are many people here, me included, who would be delighted to teach you what science really is, what it does, and how it works. On the other hand, if your intent is to come here and tell us what we think and tell us things about science that we know to be incorrect, you are wasting your time.

Yes, please teach me. Show me in a rigorous scientific method how you can spontaneously create life with some kind of biological compatible matter, and how the environment to sustain this viable biological matter came into existence from some unexplainable cosmic explosion, and tell me why this explosion occurred? You must know the secret of the god particle. Please tell me how it came to being too, since you don't think any higher beings exist to cause life. Is there a mathematical equation you have, or experiments that show that this phenomenon is repeatable? If not, you have contradicted yourself along the same standards your scientific theory religion rests upon

Wonderful, wonderful. More misunderstandings about how science works and what it thinks.Here's a hint: when you're trying to learn, the best way is to ask questions, not make ridiculous claims.In any event, I'll address those points you make to the best of my ability.We don't know exactly how life came into existence. There are different theories and research into that question is ongoing. However, since there is no definitive answer, there is no dogma to cling to about this question.There was no "cosmic explosion," at least not in the sense that most people think of when they think of explosion. There was an expansion. Don't let the somewhat misleading name "Big Bang" mislead you.I don't really know much about the Higgs boson. I never got past high school physics. Since, to my knowledge, it hasn't even been seen, I don't think anyone knows how it came to be. Research in this area is ongoing. You have an undefined referent there. I don't know what "phenomenon" you are referring to, so can't reply directly to that. However, your implication that an event must be repeatable to be scientific is incorrect. Science studies many, many things that are not repeatable. What's important is not that the event itself be repeatable, but that others be able to replicate the same observations that a scientist makes. Whether those observations are about an event that happened in the past is irrelevant. An oxymoronic word salad.Running through your post is an implicit derogation of science if it hasn't answered all questions about a particular subject. The fact that scientists are still researching an area is actually one of the hallmarks of any field of scientific inquiry. Any scientist will tell you that for every answer, there is another question, sometimes more than one. So if you think you can attack science by asking questions it cannot yet answer, this is just something else you are wrong about.

You cant answer the questions without contradicting your dogma. Neither can a creationist. They both want ALL the answers right NOW, and turn their theories/interpretations into facts. Some things remain unknown, beyond our scope of understanding. However, Creationists will be more accepting of this than the science community because they believe that some things are unfathomable mysteries of God, while scientists will reject anything that contradicts the popular, anti-spiritual theory of the day. Both are small-minded approachesand get it the way of truth.

You are wrong.

Hi bridgebuilder, and welcome to the fray. This is a hoary old PRATT:

quote:

---

PRATT CA610

​

Response:

​

1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
   • Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
   • Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
   • Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
   • Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
   • Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
   • Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
   • Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
   ​
2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
   ​
   Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
   ​
   The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).

---

Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional: If you disagree, then feel free to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread. People of a scientific disposition will not accept any hypothesis or theory that is not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by evidence.The rejection of all theories and hypothesis that are invalidated is specifically why science is not dogmatic. Demonstrating that you don't understand thermodynamics. This is another hoary old PRATT:

quote:

---

Pratt CF001

​

Response:

​

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
   • the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
   • entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
   • even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
           In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
3. Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
4. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
5. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

---

If you want to build bridges, then I suggest you start from a realistic position.Enjoy

I attacked the creationists also even though I personally lean toward a Higher Being as they do, an Intelligence that caused life as we know it. But they should not reject science either. Science shouldn't out right reject everything spiritual. Quantum physics could do a lot for religion, as well as super-string theory, etc,. and the like. Perhaps religion/spirituality doesn't have as much to offer science as science has to offer the spiritual side. Perhaps it does. both sides seem closed minded in my view. Most truths lie in the middle of radically opposite theories.

Comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it?

Don't tell me to start from a "realistic" approach when you didn't read my post. I am not a proponent of a new/young earth. I believe the earth is very old

Science doesn't reject everything spiritual. It ignores it.Science studies the natural world. Science studies anything that can be observed. Since the spiritual cannot be observed and does not have any observable impact on the natural world, science has nothing to say about it. Religion has nothing to offer science. Religion is about believing in the absence of evidence or, in many cases, in contradiction to what the evidence shows. This is anathema to science. Where there is no evidence, science stands mute. And, to the extent that religion insists on making claims in the absence of evidence, science has nothing to offer it. To the extent that religion makes claims that defy observable facts, science will say that it is wrong. I sincerely hope that science can get over the profound disappointment it no doubt feels following this revelation. Science doesn't deal in "truths." Science is about putting together the best explanation for the evidence found to date.One theory says that the Earth is the middle of the universe. One says the Earth revolves around a star near the edge of a galaxy in a universe that has no discernible center. Do you think the truth is between those two theories, or is one accurate and one inaccurate?

"We don't know exactly how life came into existence.
...
I don't think anyone knows how it came to be."I agree. It is a matter of faith. Faith in science or faith in religion. I happen to believe that God is the ultimate scientist and both sides have validity. Both side have falsehoods. I am aware that this view will not make allies either side. That is fine. Peace out, I learn even when I'm insulted. http://209.160.41.193/Images/Moods/mood10.gifon

Well, in one sense, bb is accurate. Creos are considerably more accepting of things they don't know, and quite willing to let those unknowns remain unknown, particularly when they might not like the answers.Scientists, on the other hand, are willing to acknowledge what they don't know, but then set about finding out the answers.

It's not, not for science. For science, it's a mystery, to be investigated and solved, if possible. That's because you don't know what the evidence is. Well, you haven't been insulted here, and you haven't learned. Maybe we should try being insulting.

Hi bridgebuilder, Curiously, it appears that you did not read my post with complete comprehension. An astute reader would know that I did not even imply you were a YEC, but was replying to your point: This is how science works as opposed to religion.Now would you care to reply to the post (Message 21) rather than play games?Enjoy.

But in most other senses he is wrong. But they do require that criteria.
Their acceptance of unknowns is intrinsically tied to (and limited by) their beliefs: it is dogma. True, scientists will want to 'fix' unknowns by finding the answers.
But they don't deny that they exist.