Is Science a Religion?

oh great, another one of these. a person who can only do the right thing for fear of punishment.science requires that you hold things in a tentative manner. the difference between science and religion is largely that of morality. Religion tells you how to behave. Science says squat, because morality (except for studying patterns of it and other things) has squat to do with science. Much like science says squat about the existence of god--it just doesn't care.finally, science rests on facts. Fact--earth is spherical. Fact--the sun is in the center. Fact--evolution happens. Fact--the earth is old. Fact--every body of mass interacts with other bodies of mass. Fact--the earth is warming. Fact--people die. Fact--aluminum is a metal. Fact-- . . .. Need I go on?From these facts, we build frameworks for understanding. Evolution happens. okay, how does it happen? why does it happen?and please, stop misrepresenting science.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

just so you know, the person who formulated the concept of gravity also believed that the order present in the solar system was such that only God could have made it.So, a religious person came up with the first concept of gravity.the first major shift in our understanding of gravity came from a dude who said "god doesn't play dice with the universe".here's a quick question for you--can you test for the existence of those "spirits" holding people down?better yet, can you explain why, in your hypothesis (it ain't a theory yet) gravity is the result of pushing, when the current accepted understanding of gravity is that masses pull on each other?in other words, can you explain why something is pushed toward something else, instead of pulled?the force is very real (and no, not the one in star wars). just like the magnetic force is. do you see anything pulling your compass needle in alignment with the magnetic poles? and yet, you probably accept magnetism.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

does your religion require God to exist in the holes not explained by science yet?can God not be behind all the mechanisms we see?
can God not use said mechanisms?if not, why not?your idea of God might need some maturing.

shouldn't your use of mass be replaced with weight? Because 1 gram of water is still one gram whether on jupiter or earth or in zero-gravity.mass is simply a measurement of how much "stuff" there is in an object.weight, on the other hand, reflects gravity. I weigh more on jupiter than on earth--because jupiter has a much stronger gravitational pull on me than the earth does.granted, weight still doesn't fit for:"a description of how much other bodies are attracted to each other". it's a better fit than mass, though.

thanks for the lesson in that.this is the kind of thing I miss by not taking physics.apparently, mass is a lot wierder than I thought.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

hey rob, just so you know, there's a difference between killing innocent people and killing someone who's trying to destroy you.no contradiction in his statement.you need to quit jumping the gun and think a little before you post.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

with only looking at the statement that"innocent killing is wrong. but you can kill in self-defense", there is no contradiction. you know that rob.if there is a need to kill someone in self-defense, than that person is not innocent--he's busy trying to do something to you that justifies you killing him.think before you post again. look at the statement. it doesn't matter if we think the person who just got killed is innocent. it doesn't matter if the person just killed is not innocent. It doesn't matter what any terrorist groups are doing. The only thing important here is that statement, in and of itself. there is no contradiction.again, think before you post. i wasn't concerned with who said it. just the statement. you missed that. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

i'm sorry, but what is so complex about a single DNA molecule?all it consists of is one nitrogenous base, a phosphate, and a deoxyribose sugar. phosphates are common. deoxyribose is a simple sugar. and the nitrogenous bases themselves aren't complex.and then all you do is put a bunch of them together. nothing really complex about the structure whatsoever.methinks you're confusing size of, some of the difficulties inherent in building DNA, or with the effects DNA has, with the structure.Concrete isn't complicated. But the structures it can build can definately be. The same is true of DNA. It's really quite simple. but man can it do a lot.(oh, and DNA isn't life. and so, evolution is still quite safe from that false argument. don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis again, the latter of which is concerned with how DNA and life came to exist. evolution only looks at the picture once there is life.)again, the whole thinking thing, rob.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

the argument you were making doesn't stand. reason? evolution, the theory, has squat to say about abiogenesis. you said, the problem is that evolution is now saying we're starting with the most complex molecule ever known. it's not the most complex structure, biologically or molecularry (yeah, can't spell that word) that we know of.evolution doesn't even start with DNA alone. it starts with life! don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution. you've done it twice now in a short period of time.

which is a total misunderstanding of just what the ToE is and says.if anything, you should realize that because humans are social animals, evolution will favor non-selfish behavior in the social groups. which is not giving you a reason to live "for you" (the implication of "selfish" by your statement "for me").besides, ToE isn't something that you accept on "faith". it's not something you can "believe" in. that you can't see the difference explains a lot.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

who said anything about social groups being communistic in nature, or that that's the preferred outcome? social groups tend be very heirarchical in nature. you have the strongman who runs the group.but let him ruin the group, and watch what happens. if he doesn't have enough personal power, he's going down. so the strongman is ruling the group, in the group's benefit (and his benefit).anywho, this has squat to do with the topic. if you want to discuss this at length, propose a new topic.so then, how is science a religion? you still haven't satisfactorily answered that question. All you've done is to quote a bunch of people who claim this to be so. and none of their arguments work.

oh boy.look. writing 11111111111111111111000000000000000000001111111111111111111000
00000000000000000000111111111101010101010101010101010101010000
00000000000001111111111111111111111000000000000000000000 0000000000101010101010101010101000000000000000000000000000000
111111111111111111111111110000000000000000000000101010101010
10000000000000000000000000000000000001111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111110000000000000000000000001010101010
1010101010101010100011000111111100000111100000000000001111
111110000000010101010101010101010101010000000000000000000000001111 11111111001100110011001100110011010100001000100010010010010010
01001001001010111111111111111111111111111111111000000000000000
000000000000000111111111111001010101010.is that complex? no. all it is is "1" and "0". just like all DNA is is "A", "B", "C", or "D" (when it comes to determining what amino acids are going to be used in the transcription process. All that quote means in that DNA can store a hell of a lot more information than a supercomputer can. it says squat about the complexity of DNA. looks like you can't read what you posted. i'm not sure you know what this means. it means that removing one part will cause the whole thing to fall apart. bacterium are a hell of a lot simpler than animal, plant, or fungal cells. they're missing mitochondria. a true nucleus. endoplasmic reticulum. they have smaller ribosomes. they are missing many parts, and yet they still function. so life isn't exactly irreducibly complex. otherwise, bacteria couldn't exist.oh, and cells don't have organs. organs consist of different tissues, which are themselves contructed of individual cells. (as a really simplistic answer). cells have organelles. oh my god, you've figured it out! we're lying through our teeth! do you really think we're this stupid? let's look at what natural selection is, shall we?. Natural selection: organisms that have favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those that have disfavorable traits.where do you see this trying to explain the origins of a molecule!? only an idiot would try to use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA. and the ToE doesn't do this, to begin with. grow up, rob. it is not a myth. and it does not attempt to explain how life originated. it is only concerned with what happens to life, if you will. origins of life is left to abiogenesis, and is a hot topic in research.and here is evolution in action:
Observed Instances of Speciationand you know, w/o natural selection, you can't have evolution. sorry rob, but that's the way it is.Edited by AdminNosy, : To break up long strings causing wide pages.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

um. dude. watch what you say. I'm an atheist. I don't belong to any religion (even if atheists conspired to create one church of atheism, i wouldn't join).so you're telling me that I don't value a person's life over that of a virus? you're wrong. not only are virus's not techinically alive (when using the trad. seven characteristics), but I value my family's life over that of some family I've never met. And I value their lives more, much more, than I do a dog's life. A dog over bacteria. bacteria over mosquitos.oh, and I do have "morals". I have the so-called "moral compass".next time, try not to insult as atheists when you speak.

that's not a proof. that's an assertion. prove that religion came before morals.