Thread: Science kills religion.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Care to supply some proof of a god?

The God concept is an illogical paradox. Such an idea cannot be proven scientifically. But if you ignore that flaw and challenge your thinking, then it becomes quite evident. You're looking for a shouting match of "look it here...see it's in the bible or this and that place." when proof of the supernatural doesn't work like that, logically speaking.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Do you mean forming hypothesis, searching for evidence (either positive or negative) for said hypothesis, and adapting their views to fit the evidence?
What holes are there in evolutionary science?

You'll find tons but that's beside the point right now. I just used evolution as an example.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Science readily admits when it doesn't have an answer and good scientists differentiate fact from theory. For example, most scientists will readily admit that the big bang theory is just that; a theory. Evolution is fact. It has been witnessed on a small scale, we have fossil records of large scale changes and the logic of natural selection would require a god to actively intervene for it to not be true.

The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable, I understand that. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. Evolution is not fact. It's only a theory that has been backed by many examples that supports the theory.

There is a difference between Darwinian evolution and natural selection.
You seem to think otherwise according to your post. Lastly, I'm not talking about what science admits, I'm talking about how people hold science to some golden standard as if it's full-proof, when it's not. I have the right to be a skeptic and question all things. Science is not exempt. That doesn't make me irrational for doing so, which is a common view held by those who hug textbooks.

"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

Ranganathan, B.G. Origins

...and yet scientists magically continue to find these missing links, that just pop up every now and then. Give me a break.

User - if something cannot be proven scientifically, it cannot be called real. The scientific method is flawless if it is obeyed.

You think science cannot observe the small information and suggest an explanation for the larger picture? Oh yes it can. It can so well that it's called a theory, and the more data a theory has to back it, the more accurate it is. You think geologists dug until the center of the Earth to know what was Earth's composition? No. They analysed data and created theories.

Darwinian evolution is an incomplete theory made by Darwin. Neodarwinism is what can be called right nowadays, since Darwin never mentioned genetics on his work. Genetics came to fill in the gaps of Darwin's work, and made Neodarwinism flawless.

It's pretty sure all species in the Earth evolved from a common ancestor, what lacks light is some very specialized bits of how it happened.

A scientific theory isn't "just a theory". It takes a lot for something to be called scientific theory. Also, scientific theories are potential facts, only awaiting for more information to be found before so. What happens is that a scientist cannot be arrogant enough to call his theory a fact, as that'd be unscientific.

Science is fail-proof, although works can be more or less scientific.

You think people only support science because they read their textbooks? I can tell you many people who thought up the same scientific method before learning about it (myself included).

Of course there are no transitions in evolution. There is only adaptation. There are many mysteries in how exactly evolution happened, because fossils are pretty damn rare. Only because we don't know how it happened exactly doesn't mean it didn't happen. Only because we don't have fossil records of when pink and red butterflies became different species doesn't mean it didn't happen. Flies didn't adapt into dogs, you can be pretty sure of that.

Evolution is much more certain than you think. Go study it before you make your opinion.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

All the stuff you said

smh...Way to prove my point. As for something not being able to be considered "real" because it can't be scientifically proven. Says who, logic? I thought we went over this? What is "real"?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Only because we don't know how it happened exactly doesn't mean it didn't happen.

LMAO
"Oh it happened alright, we don't know how, but it happened."
--Sounds more like religious quackery to me.

Let's back up for a minute though. How did we get here? From where did all of these species that are supposedly evolving emerge?

Originally Posted by User

Let's back up for a minute though. How did we get here? From where did all of these species that are supposedly evolving emerge?

Goddunit.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Goddunit.

Fail

Originally Posted by User

Fail

Why would you ask that question if you claim you know it all. Get to the point. Please.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Why would you ask that question if you claim you know it all. Get to the point. Please.

You obviously misunderstood all of my posts. All I've been doing is asking questions. I never claimed to have any answers. In fact, I said the total opposite. I said that we don't have all of the answers, but people act as if science has all of the answers. It's funny you say that I claim to know it all, but you didn't quote me on where I even said that.

smh...@ you Making up stuff.

I didn't care to understand all of your posts. All I wanted to know was what was the point of that question. I guess it was too funny for you to concentrate. After all, I did falsely claim you know it all and quote the "wrong" post at the same time.

Anyway I gave you what the majority of the worlds population might consider a valid answer to the question. Would you now respond with your enlightened version of specie creation? I really want to know what's so better than any theory of evolution.

Whoops, I didn't notice a new page in the thread, and replied to an old post.

nevermind

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I didn't care to understand all of your posts. All I wanted to know was what was the point of that question. I guess it was too funny for you to concentrate. After all, I did falsely claim you know it all and quote the "wrong" post at the same time.

Anyway I gave you what the majority of the worlds population might consider a valid answer to the question. Would you now respond with your enlightened version of specie creation? I really want to know what's so better than any theory of evolution.

pfft

It doesn't matter if there's anything better than the thoery of evolution because we simply don't know. Taking a "know-it-all" stance, like most evolutionists is arrogant. I'm done.

Taking the "this is all we can deduce at the moment" stance is rational. Sitting there saying "we simply don't know" won't get us closer to the answers we seek or anything at all for that matter. Science is the only way (beside Jesus), to get anywhere in that respect.

Originally Posted by User

pfft

It doesn't matter if there's anything better than the thoery of evolution because we simply don't know. Taking a "know-it-all" stance, like most evolutionists is arrogant. I'm done.

I'm sorry, what has been deduced wrongly about evolution? It has been proven: organisms evovle to fit their surroundings, organisms are also all made of teh exact same base components, therefore they must all be related in some way and must share a common origin.

This has been proven: The elements that make up organisms can all be found in nature; The chemicals that form the basic components for our definition of an organism all can be found in nature, the fossil record shows a huge cascade of living creatures inhabiting the earth and appearing and disappearing and changing, and this can even be seen today!

What is your explanation? Magic? Or selective pressures working organisms into nieches?

Btw, Macro evolution and Micro evolution are terms that haven't been in use since the late 60's. Please try to stay current if you wish to debate science.

Humans and apes? I don't see the resemblance.

thats like comparing mcintosh apples with gala apples.

@UM, eh, it's easy to take snapshots of people when they're talking and find dumb faces.

it's equally easy to take snapshots of apes when they're vocalizing and find the same dumb faces

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

@UM, eh, it's easy to take snapshots of people when they're talking and find dumb faces.

Why is it that dumb human faces look so much like dumb chimp faces? You would think humans and chimps are closely related or something.

So how do religious people explain the dinosaurs?
A species that was around before humans and there's evidence of them.

Just a general question

They lived in the garden of Eden 6000 years B.C. Duh. Also they were herbavores back then, before the evil sin of apple eating.

Its funny how God made Humans in the image of himself. When clearly Dinosaurs are better than us in every possible way.

@bonsay

no no, that's not it! They were put there by god to test our faith! It's sort of like the joke were you open the can of chips and a bunch of fake snakes jump out at you. Only now it's eternal damnation. It's funnier because it's more extreme, get it? God is so goddamned funny I ruitinely almost shit my pants laughing at all his crazy antics.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why is it that dumb human faces look so much like dumb chimp faces? You would think humans and chimps are closely related or something.

Probably.

But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence.

Spending 10 seconds doing a google search would show you how wrong you are.

You really care that little about your ignorance to correct it?

Examples of Speciation